Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginger Wallace

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. This AFD has run sufficiently long to develop consensus and it hasn't. Reading the comments, all opinions for delete or keep are weak with editors not even feeling strong enough in their positions to !vote. v/r - T P 15:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ginger Wallace[edit]

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

Fails WP:ARTIST; has only minor, local notability; article unsourced since 2008; no significant sources found on search. MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment from nominator: The "bibliography" lists seven items, but they are all books about Balboa Park; there is no evidence that they say anything at all about the subject. A Google News search for "Ginger Wallace" and "art" finds a few calendar-type listings and one book review, but nothing substantial. Google finds no reliable or independent sources. Flagged for notability since 2008. Article is written in highly promotional style, apparently written in 2008 when her book was being featured at the Museum of the Living Artist, and has been virtually untouched since then. --MelanieN (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: On the creator's talk page there is a "speedy deletion" notice for Ginger Wallace, dated Sept. 4, 2008. The current article was created 17 October 2008, so it is possible that this is a recreation of a speedy-deleted article. Would that (if true) make it a candidate for speedy deletion now? --MelanieN (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think probably delete as appears non-notable (but then I know nothing about the art world). I Googled "Ginger and Robert Wallace Day" (referred to in article) and indeed the local council proclaimed such a day. However, this was only for one specific day and not an annual thing, and the council appear to make many such proclamations. More background on Wallace at this obituary (she died last November). --89.157.132.227 (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article makes more of a claim that she is notable as a patron/philanthropist; I agree she is probably not as a pure artist. Leaning towards keep on that basis. Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for adding the information about her death, and the obit, to the article. Unfortunately the obituary, cited from legacy.com and credited to the San Diego Union Tribune, is a paid obit, as can be seen in the U-T archives - meaning it is not an independent reliable source, it was written by her family. If she was so prominent, it's odd that the U-T didn't run a staff-written obit about her, but I searched the U-T archives every way I could think of and couldn't find one. Her family makes a good case for her notability, but I was not able to confirm much of it. Founder of the Klee Wyk society? That would be important but I couldn't find any verification. Namesake of the annual "Ginger Award" from the San Diego Art Institute? Their website doesn't mention it on a search. The San Diego City Council names a "day" for someone hundreds of times a year. Bottom line, I still regard her notability as unverified. --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I guess a paid-for obit is at least an RS for birth & death dates. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait - I found a reference to the Ginger award! Having an award named after you is a good step toward notability. That puts me in the "weak delete" category. Is there more? --MelanieN (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just wanted to point out that "local notability" can be enough to serve the purpose of Wikipedia. It helps to have national or international press to establish notability. But depending on the sources local coverage should be considered.SunRiddled (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that "local notability" can be sufficient if there is coverage from multiple reliable sources (preferably regional sources rather than purely local, but the "multiple" requirement usually covers that). But I'm just not finding the coverage for her. I'm still troubled by the lack of a staff-written obituary in the San Diego Union Tribune, or anywhere. If she was really notable, either as an artist or as a philanthropist, the U-T should have done an obit as a matter of course. And I couldn't find significant coverage during her lifetime either. --MelanieN (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2011 (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.