Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Willoughby

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. Missvain (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Willoughby

[edit]

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

Emily Willoughby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Total fail of WP:PROF. Not seeing how the general notability or WP:NAUTHOR is met either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of women-related deletion discussions.Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of artists-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of authors-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete She's certainly very accomplished for someone who only just completed her PhD. But it's another step from there to "requires an encyclopedia article", and it doesn't look like there's sufficient coverage to indicate quite the needed notability either as an artist or a scientist. (If she keeps up this clip we'll have the article in three years though...) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • However the only mention of her in that review are the four words "wonderful illustrations by Emily Willoughby", and the title of her chapter. The review does cover the work of the other contributor's chapters, but it does not cover Willoughby's work in depth; therefore it is not SIGCOV. This is analogous to an artist being in a group exhibition and a review in an art magazine covering the work of four of the artists in an in-depth analysis, but only name checks another artist. That review would not cound towards notability. What is needed are in-depth reviews of her work. It is WP:TOOSOON, perhaps in a few years there will be enough to support an article. Netherzone (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Netherzone: Astonishing! … now do the reference to NPR. ~ cygnis insignis 16:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first mention by Darren Naish is second author in the citation, then stating, "So much media coverage and so much apparent interest was generated by this event that – so Kane and co-author Emily Willoughby realised – clear and comprehensive response was warranted.". I'm seeing at lot of downplaying of achievements here and fancy that one ip [accused of being a SPA] is probably not far wrong, there is a glass ceiling to inclusion. ~ cygnis insignis 16:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cygnis insignis, I truly hope you or the IP are not implying that I or any of the participants here are speaking of out sexism or bias. 75% of the biographic articles I have created are on women, and have also created articles on women's topics. Re: your SPA comment, if an anonymous editor has made only one edit ever (which was to this AfD), and the other editor made only total 4 edits (3 of which are on Willoughby), then they have "made few or no edits outside of this topic." Netherzone (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am implying there is structural bias on wikipedia, it makes me tetchy. I am also the noting accusation of an ip being a SPA being made in the edit summary, pretty sure that is not okay but correct me if that sort of thing doesn't need to be discussed at the appropriate noticeboard. I'm not wishing to downplay the achievements of Netherzone, and happy to get meta somewhere else if they are concerned by my comments, but point out the civil thing on this page is addressing the substance of discussion and not make accusations as deflection. On that: one ip also supplied a link to NPR, after the insistence there is no evidence being placed under the noses of opposers, a request to discuss that has been ignored for a second time now with a claim to, what, credentials in unbiasness? ~ cygnis insignis 18:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it is a 'passing mention', it strongly indicates notability in their opinion and that other sources in that google will support that. Notable also as a pioneer of digital paleo-art it seems. Is that source no good? ~ cygnis insignis 15:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cygnis insignis, it is a passing mention, to pass NARTIST we need multiple independent reviews of her work, a track record of exhibitions in notable galleries or museums, works held in verifiable museum collections, etc. A name check in a book or simply publishing illustrations in books (or self-published books) is not enough to meet the criteria. Netherzone (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Paleoart is any original artistic work that attempts to depict prehistoric life according to scientific evidence." The works here are said to be digital, but in any case they have been produced with the intention of being published in one form or another as scientific information. Having them 'exhibited' is not usually the purpose, the work is probably a file and printing instructions. If they satisfy the often stringent requirements of the publisher and their scientist colleagues that is the measure of their success, mentioning someone as an example of that is not done lightly. ~ cygnis insignis 16:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While getting one's art published is clearly a certain bar to pass, the notability guidelines for writing an encyclopedic article about a subject are higher than simply getting work published. As Netherzone mentions, multiple independent reviews are required with exhibitions in notable galleries etc. This is independent of whether it is digital or non-digital art or literature. We also do not write article about authors simply because they get published but because their work gets critically reviewed and discussed. See WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG for the guidelines. --hroest 17:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem seems to be that almost no published sources talk about this "impact" as an artist.--- Possibly (talk) 04:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - She fails WP:NPROF and her art does not pass WP:NARTIST yet. This article clearly may happen at some point but its just WP:TOOSOON. --hroest 15:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- PLEASE keep in mind that Wikipedia has a persistent problem with sexism and with undervaluing the contributions of female scientists. They remain underrepresented on Wiki.
Note that she was recently profiled on NPR here: https://www.npr.org/podcasts/414697070/brains-on
If NPR finds her noteworthy, then perhaps we should too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.25.58 (talk • contribs) — 212.200.25.58 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netherzone (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, I’m just not seeing a notable subject here under WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is no notability here. The article was quite deceptively written; I have toned down some of its inflations of her accomplishments. Now, for notability, firstly, does she meet NPROF? Probably not seeing as the article says she just got her PhD in 2021. In fact, a little googling says she is still a PhD candidate, so it is goign to be hard to meet NPROF in a temporary postdoc position the same year you get your doctorate. What is the article's stated best research accomplishment? That she wrote two student papers that got awards from an organization that she now sits on the board of. Second, does she meet NARTIST? I do not see any shows, collections, reviews or other customary accomplishments, so no. Third, NAUTHOR? same story, although this is the area where she has perhaps the most professional accomplishment. Finally, GNG? Well, there would have to be significant independent coverage, rather than hyped statements of accomplishment cobbled together and supported by trivial coverage. So, no. --- Possibly (talk) 04:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think anyone is arguing that she has established herself as an influential scientist or author, but as an artist she has established herself as quite an influential figure in the paleoart community. The problem here is that paleoart is a niche field which rarely receives any kind of literary discussion like other forms of art, and Willoughby herself has been on the scene for less than a decade. Paleoart is a type of functional art, not necessarily something designed for exhibitions, collectors, or magazine critics. She received the fifth highest number of votes as an influence in David Orr's 2017 survey of paleoartists, higher than Charles Knight and James Gurney. And on the 2019 survey, she received the second highest number of votes, behind only Mark Witton.[1] Admittedly I'm not sure how Wikipedia would deal with a blog-hosted survey from a reliable source perspective, but the process appeared to be transparent, methodical, and protected against manipulation. Her art has been featured heavily in Mark Witton (2018)'s "The Paleoartist's Handbook" and she has a whole chapter in Steve White (2017)'s "Dinosaur Art II", two prominent and fairly successful books discussing modern paleoart, its current major figures, and its influence on pop culture. She seems to fit the check marks of WP:ARTIST. Also, I see no reason why she in particular is being excluded, the original proposal for deletion did not even mention NARTIST, which is by far the most relevant category here. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That survey obviously skews towards younger, amateur paleoartists, particularly the 2019 survey. I don't see how Joschua Knüppe or Willoughby are more influential than Gregory S Paul, which they both outrank by mentions in the 2019 survey, so I don't think it holds much weight. As for the books, having an entire chapter sounds like SIGCOV, as for Witton's Book, what does "featured heavily" mean. Is the work critically analysed in any respect? Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are several things to keep in mind. One, most paleoartists are young, since it is a rapidly growing and niche genre. So the aforementioned artists may indeed be a personal influence for most paleoartists much more than classic paleoartists. Two, paleoart simply is not discussed by art critics, so relative notability has to be gleaned from art books such as DA and DAII. This problem is inherent to all paleoartists who have been working since ~2000, so once again I see no reason why specifically Willoughby's article is being nominated for deletion. In fact, if you sort through most of the post-dinosaur renaissance paleoartists on Paleoart, you will find that their sources are almost always surveys, art books, and news articles (akin to the Orr survey, DAII, and NPR talk with Willoughby). She is not an outlier in regards to paleoartist articles. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out that there are other paleoartist who do not appear to merit wikipedia articles, I have marked Mark P. Witton for notability and I will nominate it for deletion in due course if more citations are not added. Both Charles Knight, James Gurney, and Gregory S. Paul pass WP:GNG. Joschua Knüppe does not appear to have a page. If there are other pages that aren’t up to snuff in this space please point them out. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fanboyphilosopher: A quick search has revealed a whole bunch, for now I’ve tagged Alex Ebel, Jan Sovák, Nobu Tamura, Sergey Krasovskiy, and Doug Henderson (artist) as not meeting out notability requirements. I’m going to keep looking, thank you for letting us know that "She is not an outlier in regards to paleoartist articles.” apparently we have a rotten genera. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Witton is probably one of the most influential paleoartists currently active, and even discounting that, his paleontological work has been popularized modern view on the morphology and behavior of azhdarchids and other pterosaurs (he basically wrote the most successful pterosaur book since 1991),[2] which show up in all sorts of independent media today. I was not meaning to mark paleoartists in general for deletion, I was simply meaning to note how paleoart must be considered by different guidelines and merits relative to exhibition art. The current guidelines are a bit biased towards the "art for the sake of art" form of the term, which would automatically (and in my opinion, unfairly) reject many influential scientific illustrators. By the standards used to evaluate paleoart, all of these artists would pass NOTARTIST with flying colors. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"By the standards used to evaluate paleoart, all of these artists would pass NOTARTIST with flying colors.” what standards are those exactly? I’ve just been through the "Modern (post–Dinosaur Renaissance) paleoartists” section and the vast majority of those featured do not pass WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. Please specify what about paleoart makes it different from all other art. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to be very clear that we’re looking at >20 deletion nominations, this appears to be a serious problem that needs a serious remedy. Dismissing the issue by claiming prejudice in the art world is inappropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with HEB that some of them, such as Nobu Tamura, are definitely not notable, but I think Mark Witton probably passes NAUTHOR. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You’re right, Witton probably does pass NAUTHOR. When I google I see a number of book reviews that aren’t currently featured on their profile. In hindsight having waded through the swamp Witton is among the most notable people in this genera. More pages of concern are Andrey Atuchin, Wayne Barlowe, Davide Bonadonna, Kenneth Carpenter, Karen Carr, John Conway (palaeoartist), Ricardo Delgado (comics), Todd Marshall (artist), Raúl Martín (artist), Josef Moravec, Luis Rey, John Sibbick, Velizar Simeonovski, Michael Skrepnick, Danielle Dufault, Julio Lacerda, Michael Trcic, Brian Cooley (artist), and David Krentz. I presume there are more but thats about my limit. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fanboyphilosopher:, sigh, I'm reminded of things not to say at AfD. You might benefit from the wisdom of WP:BEANS. ~ cygnis insignis 16:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I regret even bringing up everyone else. I see absolutely no reason why Wikipedia's notability guidelines should be misused to delete the article of every scientific illustrator or paleoartist who has not formally been critiqued by independent sources. By any other standard these people are very influential in the scene. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are often critiqued by peers who are scientists, publishers wanting profit in a highly competitive market, and unlike most artists the very real potential of being demonstrably wrong, all that can be verified by different means, as you point out, and has already been provided in this discussion. ~ cygnis insignis 17:19, 5 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Emily_Willoughby&oldid=1022863886"