Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ann Grocott

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 11:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Grocott

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have not been able to verify any of the claims about her art career. It is worth mentioning that the article appears to have been written by a family member, who also worked on Rex Wood and Noel Wood. The best coverage availble is a set of news articles about how she discovered that 50 of her late father's painting at auction were actually fakes. But: WP:NOTINHERITED.Possibly (talk) 05:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 05:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 05:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 05:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited, her father was notable, she is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question and comment - @Possibly: as part of the checks you are required to do before nominating an article for deletion, did you confirm whether the multiple news articles listed under the "Further reading" sources actually discuss Ms Grocott and are reliable sources? I note a few of the articles are late 1980s and early 1990s and probably wouldn't be online. If they are all or largely significant coverage then the article would clearly meet WP:GNG, if they aren't then she may not, but it's a bit hard to tell. Other users like me would be grateful if you could confirm that so we can make a better assessment of notability. Deus et lex (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deus et lex: as I recall, I did extensive searches and could not find any of the further reading items online. There's a strong chance this is an autobiography, so I am also assuming that sources and claims have been inflated. For example the article says "She is represented in private and public collections," but I found no evidence for this online. I take all claims in the article with a large grain of salt.--- Possibly (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Possibly: - thanks for confirming. I agree about the COI problems, but I suppose I remain a bit worried about !voting to delete an article where there are 10 offline sources listed in the article that (I assume) are supposed to back up notability. Wikipedia doesn't just rely on online sources, and the subject of the article is either 82 or 83 years old so it's likely that the majority of reliable sources, if there are any and regardless of the COI issues, would be offline. If there's a way you can determine even if one or two of these are genuine or not, that would significantly help. Deus et lex (talk) 11:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Possibly:, I suppose another way to look at this might be to assess her against WP:ARTIST. I would agree on the current state of the article she doesn't really meet any of the subpoints in that notability policy. Deus et lex (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deus et lex: Keep in mind that those sources appear to have been put there by the article subject. I would stick to what is known, rather than what might be possible. Try verifying a collection. Try finding an exhibition review. I have spent time trying and there is basically nothing out there. Notable artists tend to generate durable coverage. I'm working on translating Draft:Estelle de Barescut, and the sources are falling from the sky, even though she died 170 years ago. --- Possibly (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did this search of newspapers.com which does at least pick up mentions of older articles in the Sydney Morning Herald and Age (which should cover some of the listed articles), and you can read old text using OCR. There's a couple of mentions of Grocott's work, but they're minor mentions of gallery exhibitions, certainly not anything that meets the test of significant coverage. ~~I'm going to !vote Delete unless someone can come up with anything better.~~ Deus et lex (talk) 11:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I have seen enough of these that I figured that was the case.--- Possibly (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is coverage of her relating to her own career as both a writer and an artist, including works in international exhibitions, as well as news coverage of specific events such as her reporting of her father's fakes. The sources take a bit of digging, and given her age others likely fall into the "dark zone" (older than public domain, before online sources). I am willing to give this article some TLC and improve the sourcing to better indicate her notability. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC) Updates done: Also note that there is a list of published sources which were not available online, indicating repeated coverage over a 30-40 year period, given at the end of the article. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Mary Mark Ockerbloom: you will see from my discussion with Possibly above that we had trouble actually identifying that those "sources" at the end of the article actually constitute significant coverage according to Wikipedia's guidelines. The one I was able to find was nothing more than a brief mention of an exhibition which is not sufficient. As an example of sources currently in the article (not the list at the end), the AFR article (source 3) is primarily about Noel Woodl the "Duck For Danger" (source 4) is just a book review, not significant coverage; the Auslit site (source 9) is just a list of two of her works and nothing else, source 10 is a PhD thesis, sources 11, 12, 14 and 15 are just notes on exhibitions (which don't significantly discuss her), source 13 doesn't even mention her, source 16 is just a mention, etc. Can you tell us which of the criteria in WP:ARTIST she meets, or is there anything you can show us which meets the test of significant independent coverage? Deus et lex (talk) 09:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nothing to add except that the editor Enoneo (who has declared as being the article's subject) has left a comment on this AfD's talk page. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question to @Enoneo:' - are you able to point us to where your work has been covered (to a significant extent - ie. a feature article on you, etc., not just a one-off mention of an exhibition)? We're struggling to find sources to meet Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. Deus et lex (talk) 08:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mary Mark Ockerbloom: Artist's work appeared in multiple international exhibitions on different continents; published multiple books; and was "one of five artists chosen to represent Australia in the year 2000." Many distinct reliable sources are cited in the footnotes. Not a close call.-- econterms (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (1993). The Oxford Companion to Australian Children's Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press should be notable enough for authorship, and if citation of being one of five artists nominated for Australia in the millenium exhibition, that should suffice, per Mary Mark Ockerbloom and econterms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaybeesquared (talk • contribs) 22:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have put some comments on my Ann Grocott Talk page but I don't know if anyone has looked at them. --Enoneo (talk) 02:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: answering Deus et let: I answered your question on my own talk page. Hope you saw it. Thanks--Enoneo (talk) 04:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm going to change my !vote to a Weak keep for now - it seems there may be some reliable sources after all (though very hard to find) and I'm willing to give this the benefit of the doubt. It needs a cleanup but not a matter for AfD. Deus et lex (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NAUTHOR, having an entry in The Oxford Companion to Australian Childrens Literature considering "In the 1600 entries that appear in the Companion, we have selected many of the authors and illustrators who have contributed most to Australian children's literature and culture during the past 150 years." (from the Preface, page v) shows that Grocott "is regarded as an important figure" in Australian children's literature. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.