Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice Cling

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. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 03:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Cling[edit]

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

Non working ref. Google returns essentially nothing. Ies (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)'[reply]

I have invited Johnpacklambert to clarify his statement. Per WP:DISCUSSAFD valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements. Mduvekot (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The references are still primarily passing and the collection holdings are not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, still showing you have no idea how to assess AFDs, even after the ANI. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert Are you serious? Six notable museums is not enough to show notability? Mduvekot (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert Are you serious? Inclusion in several Encyclopedias of Art is not enough to show notability? --Theredproject (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert Why invite this specific editor and make his opinion be something more valued than the many editors who have build a consensus keep for this article? I don't understand. Beyond the fact that he has been banned from nominating AfD -- see here. I also disagree vehemently with his assessment. I don't think asking for his clarification is necessary AT ALL. I think this is a stub article about one of the most important living Navajo potters, someone who is repeatedly described in credentialed sources as being responsible for re-invigorating and elevating pottery to a level of artisanship that is unparalleled in their community. So disagree with this. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BrillLyle: I'd be happy to explain why I invited Johnpacklambert to comment, just not here. This discussion is only about the merits of the article, not the behaviour of editors. Contact me on my talk page if you want. Mduvekot (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was not banned from nominating articles for deletion. That is a false claim showing a lack of understanding of the restriction. The fact that PageantUpdater commented shows her extreme willingness to engage in active houding and other unfriendly behavior. Beyond this, this whole discussion shows a willingness to bully and try to force people to conform to one view instead of accepting that people have the right to their own views and not trying to force conformity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Take a look at the citations I just added from a quick Google Books search (top four items). In the collection of the Smithsonian. Several sources argue she is the most important Navajo Potter of the last 25 years. --Theredproject (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just added a reference to her entry in The Grove encyclopedia of American art, which is about as authoritative as it gets.--Theredproject (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Google returns an abundance of sources, as do google books, and scholar. This is one of the most notable artists in her field. (update) Let me try to add something that I don't recall ever having seen uin an AfD: Cling has an entry in the Union List of Artist Names (ULAN), [1]. That satisfies WP:ANYBIO#3 Mduvekot (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With more extensive research, it seems you both are correct and my tag was premature. Let's give the discussion some time to simmer to see if anyone else has input, but as it stands my position was probably incorrect. Ies (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Artist is notable, entry should be kept as stub. Obviously needs development but this is more about the Wikipedia editors not doing enough work than actual notability. I will try to add content to have this AfD challenge dismissed. BrillLyle (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I have updated the entry significantly, which I believe clearly establishes notability. Please let me know if I need to continue. There are more resources for sure. Best, Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is this attitude that keeps Wikipedia less than what it could be. If there are more resources, more relevant references, and more things that should be said about the subject, than of course the article should be expanded and improved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Johnpacklambert Dude, I improve Wikipedia by adding significant content all the time, so I take issue with this characterization and call out. If you did as many article rescues and improvements as I do then you have to be judicious as to the amount of work done and where. If I could do this full time as a paid editor I would, and would do a more deep scrub of pages like this. I'm definitely over-reacting here but this type of criticism is something I've never seen. My goals here were to (a) remove the concern about notability and this AfD by establishing notability more fully and close this AfD and (b) bring it to a stub status, both of which efforts I believe were successful. As feedback I think it might be helpful to examine why you wrote this, and how constructive it is. But maybe you are just trolling here and trying to get a negative response? I'm not sure. But I want you to know I don't appreciate having my efforts -- and the outrageous question if I had done enough work -- brought up like this. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am sorry my comment came off as combative, that was not my intent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the input of other editors has shown that this article might be more notable than previously thought. The fact that the article needs to be expanded is not a valid reason for deletion. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable artist as per Keep !votes above. She has work in major permanent collections. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Mentioned in The Grove Encyclopedia of American Art seems to be sufficient, and there are other sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On further reflection on the sources it does appear there are enough to show that Cling is notable. I have to say if there is one major issue that is off about the discussion above it is that people attack me for my statements with regards to the discussion, but do not question the actions of the nominator at all. Assuming my goodlge search done now is similar to the one done at first, I can see the "essentially nothing" argument. What leads the google search are Andrea Fisher Fine Pottery and Cameron Trading Post listings. I have been to the Cameron Trading Post and while they sell fine art pottery, I doubt all their works are from notable potters. Google leading with commercial, for sale sites does not mean that there are not reliable source coverages though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2017 (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.