Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber Fyfe

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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Fyfe

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:ARTIST. References are from a local newspaper, a pub, and a self written blurb. Derek Andrews (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. freshacconci (✉) 19:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only sources that appear to be available are the ones in the article, which do not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST, and also fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Simply being a working artist is not sufficient. I searched google, google news, newspapers, scholar and books. In the latter two, false hits come up for someone names Amber Fyfe-Johnson, who is a different person. It's difficult to determine how long she has been working as an artist since university, but this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. No prejudice on recreation, if deleted, if and when sources become available. freshacconci (✉) 19:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a search turned up the same sources used in the article. The first is an unreliable source. The second is a membership listing. The third is an actual good source. However, one source does not a notable artist make. Fails BASIC and ARTIST.104.163.147.121 (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline Keep My search also brought up an archive bio on CBC.ca, and something in Galleries West magazine (which appears to be a major arts magazine) which unfortunately I can’t see and does not appear to have been kept on the magazine’s website as it dates from 2004. My thoughts are that it may simply be a listing or review covering her Victoria Art Gallery exhibits. I appreciate this barely brings her into notability but this is made doubly difficult by the gallery no longer existing and press being hard to retrieve so I wonder if we should not assume good faith on this occasion. Mramoeba (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I got a real chuckle out of the "major" line. Galleries West is a very minor publication that is essentially a listing of shows with a few articles hacked in. It is given away for free in most west coast galleries. It covers the western and northern provinces and exists largely to sell ads and make money. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 04:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mramoeba: I found a scanned copy of that Galleries West issue. She's mentioned on page 68 and I'm afraid it's just her name listed as one of the artists represented by the gallery. The CBC listing appears to be a list of artists for an exhibition as part of Canada Reads 2005, although it's not 100% clear. freshacconci (✉) 15:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, had a feeling it might be that. In my (limited) experience coverage of women artists is woeful. I will take another look around. *Edit: The (not at all notable) Facebook post says “She was featured in the Friday, August 12 edition of the Regina Leader Post and on the CBC morning show the following week.”Mramoeba (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely not gunning for delete and would be happy to change my !vote if sources turned up. It's hard for women artists to receive coverage and in Canada it's all the more difficult with limited media outlets. freshacconci (✉) 15:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@freshacconci Source for that? It is not any harder for women artists for receive press coverage in Canada than it is for male artists. I know dozens of female Canadian artists who have received excellent press.104.163.147.121 (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the dozens of female Canadian artists you know, here is a cite for that ““Taking the Measure of Sexism: Facts, Figures and Fixes,” she showed statistically a vast gender imbalance in terms of museum exhibitions and permanent collections, prices, gallery representation and press coverage.” It is a worldwide problem, as the original article tried to address. Mramoeba (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of those articles, and of the problem. However, this AfD is about a Canadian artist, and both of those articles deal with the United States, not Canada. While I would agree there are significant barriers to Canadian artists getting press and inclusion in US Markets, it is not the same situation here. Canada is still a country where someone with smarts and enough determination can make it onto the national news, into Canadian Art Magazine or have a serious gallery show. Sexism and gender biases still exist in curating and promotion, but it's a entirely different kettle of fish. I trust you will not mix up Canada and its southern neighbour again. :) 104.163.147.121 (talk) 03:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the three sources listed above --an archived bio posted on CBC, a Galleries west item published in ISSU, and a Facebook post (not claimed to be valuable)-- amount to absolutely nothing, notability-wise. Bios are written by the artists, and the Galleries West magazine is a commercial publication meant to sell ads.104.163.147.121 (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources are just too thin to establish any impact.--Theredproject (talk) 00:47, 18 March 2018 (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.