Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Myntti

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. Borderline case with thin references, however, after two re-lists there is no clear consensus in either direction, and established editors have provided some evidence for either side of the case. No prejudice therefore to re-listing this AfD again at a future date. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Myntti

[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)

WP:ARTIST fail. Marginal notability, likely an autobio; the article was also created by a paid editor back in 2012. Verification failed on the claim of being in the LACMA and Huntington Museum collections. News coverage is consistently small local papers. See also the talk page. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 09:52, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:GNG, multiple examples of significant reliable coverage in multiple reliable sources over a long period. There's no requirment for them to be major, or national. Though I agree, it would help her case to have better proof of the claims of her works being in major public collections. Sionk (talk) 13:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The museum collections are flat out lies, to put it plainly. They were originaly sourced by generic URLs to the museums, which I removed. I have now removed the collections from the article, as there is not a shred of evidence that they are factual. I think it much more likely that she sold something in their gift shop(s). ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP, that's a bit harsh, isn't it? Myntti lists those collections on her CV. But I do think it's very strange that LACMA would collect the work of an artist who only two years ago was an MFA student at Claremont. https://www.cgu.edu/students/laura-myntti/ And yes, LACMA doesn't list it in their collection. Perhaps there is another explanation. Sometimes a museum library has a copy of publication by the artist. Could it be that the Balch Art Research Library holds a copy of her Self-Help Graphics for example? Vexations (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is harsh, as there is zero evidence of the claims being true (total lack of art world reviews and a lack of entries in claimed collections). They might indeed have her book in their library, but that is not the same as a curator having selected her work for the permanent art collection. The statement "her work is in the collection of X museum" clearly implies artwork, not a book in a library. It is classic exaggeration/puffery. Happy to be proven wrong, but I sense the claims here are largely empty, and the accomplishments very run of the mill.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Worldcat does not show her book as being held in the Balch Library at LACMA.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While it may not be true that Myntti's work is in the LACMA collection, it's only a lie if the editor who inserted the claim knew it was false and inserted it anyway in an attempt to deceive out readers. They did cite the claim, to https://www.oakpark.com/News/Articles/1-18-2011/River-Forest-artist-co_chairs-UNICEF's-upcoming-gala-benefit/, which does indeed say her work is in LACMA's collection as well as https://web.archive.org/web/20150927080501/http://www.oakparkjournal.com/2008/2008-Laura-Myntti-show-oakpark-feb-29th-end.html. Now, we need to be cautious when repeating such claims. Articles like the two above are usually not rigorously fact-checked and the biographical information is often copied straight from a press release that the gallery provides for the exhibition and that bio is almost always provided by the artist. In this case, I'd say that if we have two sources who make vague claims that the work is in the LACMA collection, and LACMA does not list her work at https://collections.lacma.org/, together with the sheer unlikelihood of a work of such an artist's work in that collection we ought to assume that the claim is false; Myntti's work is not in the collection. We should also now consider the other claims about collections in doubt. Unless supported by solid evidence from the collecting institution itself, those should be removed as unverifiable. In other words: I don't trust the artist, and any newspaper that repeats what she says about herself. If all those claims fail to verify, I'd consider this artist not notable, unless more evidence of notablity emerges. Delete for now. Vexations (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify my use of the word lie, I'll go with Merriam-Webster's second definition of the word as a noun: something that misleads or deceives. In this case the museum collection claims all lead back to the artist, with no evidence (so far) of them leading to independent sources that prove the claims.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried to verify the museum collection claims. For LACMA, and Huntington I failed to verify. For the others, her work didn't show up in their "selections from the collection" but they don't have their full collections online, so the search results were inconclusive. --Theredproject (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I also note the claims about the SoCalMFA show are disengenuous, though maybe not technically incorrect. These shows are juried by a major figure like Amanda Ross Ho or Helen Molesworth. For the most recent version, the three CGU MFA students are listed as "organized by MFA students" [1] though the year that Myntti was involved it says "This year's coordinators and curators are Laura Myntti, Dakota Noot, and Chelsea Boxwell." [2] --Theredproject (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject of this article does not meet notability criteria. Does not pass GNG or NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep at this point. She does have work in the Anchorage Museum [3], which doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article. Her exhibitions have been reviewed in the Anchorage Daily News (Alaska), the Spokesman-Review (Washington), the Courier News (New Jersey), and the Chicago Sun-Times. It would be good to know if other galleries and museums do have her work in their permanent collections, but as other editors have noted, the ones listed on her CV don't all have their full collections searchable online. This might be a case of needing to check with the museums. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good find on the anchorage museum. However for the rest, there is zero published evidence anywhere other than her claims of being in LACMA etc. Not sure why we would take those claims seriously when there is demonstrated evidence of inflation in so many other claims she makes. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some of the articles I saw have quite vague statements like "many foreign museums". The LACMA claim may have been false, but museums and galleries do also de-accession works, so perhaps they had some of her work at one time but no longer do. Either way, it shouldn't be in the article, and doesn't contribute to notability. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If a museum decommissions a work, that does not affect notability negatively. As I found out during one of my first AfD nominations: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Therese_Steinhardt_Rosenblatt notability is not temporary. If we can find a source that shows that Myntti's work was at some point in a collection, that would help to establish notability. Vexations (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we can find a source that shows that Myntti's work was at some point in a collection, that would help to establish notability. Exactly. But in the absence of sources, it is pretty clear here that she was never in those museums. It is entirely unblievable that she would be in LACMA, for example. So giving points for possible museum collections without sourcing makes no sense. I'm a little disappointed that we are not seeing through the fabrications here, but I have said that enough and will make this my last comment.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement with ThatMontrealIP, there are credibility issues. The collections cannot be verified; the article puffs up juried shows, and we all know that juried shows are not invitational or curated shows, they are shows for which an artist pays a fee to have their work considered. Many of the references are dead links; unverifiable; primary sources; a self-published essay; or about her graduate show. The main contributor to the article is a SPA with an obvious COI. None of the background info is cited. Why on earth is the fact that she's on the board of her local planetarium or that she "curated" an MFA show in the article? Once you strip away all this nonsense, there is nothing close to notability. Netherzone (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per RebeccaGreen. Just passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article by promotional editor. Borderline presence in museums, borderline references. Many museums --even very good ones-- include local artists whom they would otherwise not include, as a sign of their willingness to help and promote the local artistic community. The attempt to get an article here is with the clear intent of helping her work be better known, and is thus inherently promotional in nature. On balance, the combination of dubious notability and promotionalism would be a reason for deletion. The attempt to include an probably false claim and inflate the few technically correct ones does not indicate good faith, and gives final proof to the promotional purposes. The failure of good faith is a reason for deletion--I'd say even speedy deletion. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have just replaced the dead urls with archived urls, or updated the ones to press clippings on Myntti's own website. I would happily change my vote if I see sufficient evidence to do so. Actually, what I see is that the article needs work - I have no idea why the lede would mention exhibitions in 1988 and 1989, and that she has appeared in articles in local newspapers, when it doesn't mention a 2009 solo exhibition in Oak Park, California [4], and in Paris, France [5]. I haven't yet found any reviews of the Paris exhibition, but will see what else I find. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, just because an artist has a show and gets a review does not indicate notability. Artists have shows, they just do, and shows sometimes get reviewed. Neither of these shows are important nor indicate that she has contributed something of distinction to her field. The one in Paris is a ten-day long show in the workshop of two people who run a print shop out of their studio.[6] One imagines the shows are of artists who have made prints at their workshop, so there are commercial (promotional) aspects to consider. The other show is also in a print workshop that has shows for its members, it is not a notable gallery or museum. I understand that WP needs to increase its coverage of women, and I am 100% behind this effort, but it does not serve the project if artist who has ever exhibited gets an article. WP is not a web host. Netherzone (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen:: the Oak Park review is of some value, in that is is printed in a newspaper. At the same time, when I checked the venue it is a printmaking co-op, where artists pay to be members and the promo text says "Our studio offers printmakers a unique opportunity to show print works exclusively! All members may participate in group shows and boutiques; contract members may have a private show!" So it (the show, not the review) is yet another case of very plain activities that imply recognition being put forth as professional recognition. In reality it's just a show she paid for. That is not necessarily a bad thing; many early-stage artists do that. But a self-propelled members show does not contribute to notability. The common thread here is that there is very little in terms of independent professional recognition of her work by curators. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I previously closed this AfD as no consensus. After a request to reconsider, I have vacated my closure and am relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you for reopening the AfD. I was wondering about this case, as one of the (delete) !votes is located at the end of a block of text, and was unclear to me if it was caught by the closing editor. I know !votes aren't counted as votes, but a good argument was made that the subject of the article is not notable. Netherzone (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability can often be a matter of degree, and whether it meets the guidelines a matter of interpretation. But WP:Verifiability is an essential policy. If the most important statements in the article that might imply notability can not be verified, there is no way there should be an article. Verifiability is something we do not and should not compromise about -- most especially about statements in biographies of living people. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RG she has her work exhibited in the Anchorage Museum [7], She has also been reviewed in publications from Alaska to Chicago. Wm335td (talk) 22:02, 4 November 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.