Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Lynch (artist)

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. The sources are reliable and verifiable, just not enough to establish significant coverage. However, WP:ARTIST #4 is an alternate criterion for notability, and it does not appear to have resolved either way in this discussion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Lynch (artist)[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. Sources provided are both primary. Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. The author has a COI Flat Out (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable artist; vanity/promotional page. Quis separabit? 23:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the national museum collection which is why I accepted. SwisterTwister talk 08:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor has created or tried to create many articles on Australian visual artists. But that in and of itself doesn't mean the "author has a COI"? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More accurately they created or tried to create many articles on Australian visual artists specifically from Arts Project Australia a single suburban organization they they also created a draft for. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very borderline wikipedia technical general notability but works being held by the NGA I suggest confirms notability. NGA holding meets WP:CREATIVE/WP:ARTIST. Editor COI is not grounds for deletion. Notability and verifiability of the article content is. And this content seems oaky. Aoziwe (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Delete Two is not several ~~The articles 'Collections' section alone meets WP:ARTIST element #4.~~ Gab4gab (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment like I said at WP:Articles for deletion/Brigid Hanrahan and WP:Articles for deletion/Dorothy Berry, I am concerned about the lack of critical reception. Even for artist who technically meet some of the secondary notability criteria of WP:ARTIST, for example being represented in a collection, we still need someone else to write something we can base an article on. I would really like to see some in-depth reviews from reliable, independent sources, and artshub is not an independent source.Mduvekot (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking at WP:ARTIST#4:

"The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."

a) Nope. b) No evidence of being a substantial part of a significant exhibition. c) Nope. d)No evidence of being represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. NGA holding alone does not meet criteria. (more info on the Home Sweet Home NGA collection found here and here running 11 October 2003 – 18 January 2004)

Wikipedia is not a free webhost for the collection of artist bios for the Northcote-based studio at Arts Project Australia.

Note that the collection section claims "Lynch’s work is represented in private collections and in the National Gallery of Australia collection and the Stuart Purves Collection". The only part verified (primary source) is that she was one small part of a Stuart Purves collection and that was an exhibition for Australian Galleries [1] ([2]). duffbeerforme (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find this and two others through an NGA collection search for Anne Lynch. I think that's a good source for perm collection. Gab4gab (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The permanent collection requirement says several, that is more than 2, and I see no evidence that is met.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~and develop~~. This artist is well known in the Outsider art circuit, having shown at Phillis Kind Gallery in NYC, which is the one of the most (if not the most) significant gallery in the U.S. showing Outsider art. I've looked online and there is coverage of her, enough so that the article ~~can be~~. is improved. Please be patient before deleting - ~~I'll work on improving this article but today is a travel day for me, so my time is momentarily limited.~~ Marginalized outsider, vernacular artists with disabilities do not receive equal press and secondary source coverage as do artists in the mainstream who work in the culture industry of commercial galleries and museums. Often their presence and contributions are recorded via oral histories and visual culture, rather than "THE Normative Press. Please consider context.Netherzone (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per lack of reliable sources, as described above. Just to address some of the comments, while it is true that disabled or unorthodox artists like Lynch can sometimes find it harder to get coverage, verifiability is still a non-negotiable requirement for an article here. This isn't intended to punish people like Lynch, nor is it a comment on the worthiness or otherwise of her art, but rather to acknowledge that it is impossible to write a neutral and comprehensive biography without reliable source material. In this particular case, the sources provided are either just trivial mentions in articles on other topics, or are on websites that have a vested interest in increasing Lynch's profile because they are selling her works. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:20, 22 January 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.