Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DG House

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, without prejudice against refunding to draft if there are editors willing to continue working on it. bd2412 T 04:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DG House[edit]

[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)

Completely non-notable artist. Page creator's only contribution to Wikipedia was to create this page, so possible promotional effort Yuchitown (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article states she is in the NMAI collection (Smithsonian Institution) however a search of the collections turns up nothing. Netherzone (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Changed to Delete per Netherzone's research. GNG fail. Neutral There is some coverage in reliable sources, but it's borderline in terms of notability as the sources are very local. Some include: an article in WTHR Indianapolis gives a detailed profile, the Bozeman Daily chronicle, the Great Falls Tribune, the Helena Independent Record and so on. Checked the Smithsonian, and as Netherzone says, could not find her in the collection.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Any artist who has ever had an art show will have newspaper coverage of that show. WP:Artist #4 states, "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." The exact number of major permanent collections isn't stipulated, but it's got to be more than two. Yuchitown (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Several actually means two or more. But it's not a concern here really, because we cannot so far confirm even one.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Artists have shows, but not all shows are significant exhibitions. As to significant critical attention, the profile in the WTHR is not a review, but it does mention that she is included in a two-day art "festival", which, if modeled after the juried Santa Fe "Indian Market" consists of outdoor rented vendor booths. I would not consider that a significant exhibition like a one person show at a museum. The Bozeman Chronicle article is a profile not a review (not significant critical attention), as is the G.F. Tribune. The Helena Ind. Record article has two sentences on this artist. I don't know that this artist has met any of the criteria for notability yet. Netherzone (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any artist who has ever had an art show will have newspaper coverage of that show. Not true. -- Hoary (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found another profile on her by the Yellowstone Nat'l Park Lodges, however it is not a critical review but more of a promotional profile. Also continued to look for evidence of museum collections, and came up cold. I have to say delete on this one, as she does not seem to pass WP:ARTIST nor WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here's a few more independent sources that I believe bring her up to the standards of WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. She's the main subject of two of the independent articles, and the others are reviews of her work in shows (usually alongside another artist): [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] .4meter4 (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to give more time to evaluate the sources listed by 4meter4.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Second relist, to allow time for more analysis of the sources presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is a real vibe. Micro article, perhaps too soon, but I think what she has done makes her is notable. scope_creep^Talk 00:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Every exhibiting artist on the planet is going to have *some* newspaper coverage. How does this artist meet the qualifications for WP:Artist #4, "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums"? Yuchitown (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Delete Not enough for GNG. Johnbod (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2019 (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.