Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenna Murphy

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. Overall consensus is for article retention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brenna Murphy

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

WP:BLP of an artist, with no credible or properly sourced claim of notability per WP:NARTIST -- as written, this just asserts that she exists, while failing to list any specific accomplishments that could actually be measured against Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for artists, and the sourcing is parked on one "our artists" profile on the website of a directly-affiliated gallery (a primary source which cannot assist notability) and one Q&A-style interview in a magazine (a source which would be acceptable for some supplementary confirmation of facts after an article had already been sourced over WP:GNG, but cannot count toward GNG as it represents the subject talking about herself.) Nothing here is substantive enough, or reliably sourced well enough, to make her suitable for inclusion at this time. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be written more substantively, and sourced better, than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete Agree with above comment. ShelbyMarion (talk) 04:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did you do WP:BEFORE? Valfontis (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an interview can show notability because it means that she was newsworthy. It shouldn't be unduly relied upon for the article, though. However, she is written up in Hyperallergenic, and in Oregon Live as well. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews cannot count toward GNG at all, because they represent the topic talking about herself, and are thus subject to the same problems as any primary source — so interviews can be used only for supplementary confirmation of biographical facts after an article has already been sourced over GNG, and cannot bring any GNG in their own right. Bearcat (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the New Museum exhibition, Hyperallergic, and ARTnews are enough to establish notability aside from the AiA interview. That said, having an interview in Art in America is indicative of significant attention on her work. Art in America is one of the top five most important art outlets (Artforum, Frieze, ARTnews, NYTimes). As per @Megalibrarygirl: I would be disinclined to rely on it heavily, but I do think it signifies notability.Theredproject (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article was improved substantially after initial proposal.--Theredproject (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Theredproject - well-put. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Note additional sources have been added, including review of group show in the New York Times and mention of her involvement at Eyebeam in the Wall Street Journal and Dazed. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is sufficient evidence of significant critical attention (WSJ, NYT) to satisfy WP:NARTIST Mduvekot (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2016 (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.