Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caroline Wiseman

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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Wiseman[edit]

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

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

Really known for a single event. scope_creepTalk 13:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The RSA isn't an elected postion. Its paid, a charitable donation, so is not a sign of academic achievement. scope_creepTalk 00:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's a fee, but they do appear to apply some discretion over membership. I'll also note that her book The Leonardo Question was adapted for stage and reviewed here and here. These aren't the strongest sources, but I think it shows that this isn't a 1E biography. She's marginally notable for her contributions to the art world, her writing, and and the recent Gormley story. Taken together, I think they're just sufficient. pburka (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The RSA does not meet notability guidelines. The test for notability is multiple reviews of your works, not how many libraries hold them. The former is lacking for Wiseman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those are two good reviews, i.e. for the references above. scope_creepTalk 20:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep RSA fellowship isn't exactly what WP:PROF#C3 is asking for, but it is a sign of recognition. That and the other points mentioned by pburka above lead me to think this article clears the bar. XOR'easter (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@XOR'easter: The RSA fellowship isn't a sign of recognition. I could join it tommorrow. I've got some mates up at Grey's in Aberdeen and Glasgow School of Art and could join the RSA tonight. It is a paid entry with a couple of references from friends, to ensure your not a idiot, and your genuily interested in art. I really don't see it is a sign of prestige. scope_creepTalk 07:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete according to Royal_Society_of_Arts#Fellowship the fellowships are not a distinction any more and more recently fellowship is open to anyone who simply "share[s] the values"[12] of the RSA and is "committed to supporting the mission of the RSA". She also fails WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR. --hroest 15:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although I don't see any sign whatsoever of WP:NPROF here, there are substantial profiles of her in the Guardian [1] and the Telegraph [2], albeit in the lifestyles section. Together with other, weaker, coverage through the years, I think it's enough for WP:GNG. There's some weak support from WP:NCREATIVE, although I don't think it would be a standalone pass of that criterion. The kerfuffle over the sculptures on the beach doesn't add so much, but also doesn't detract from notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Russ Woodroofe thanks for these two articles, however they seem a bit of a stretch as they are mainly commenting on the house in which she lives and less about her live. --hroest 00:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    hroest, if it were just those two profiles, I think I'd prefix "weak", or even not !vote. (I will remark that profiles are usually mainly about something that someone is involved in, though, and I think these are interested enough in her to be WP:SIGCOV, and that they otherwise are the multiple independent sources required by WP:BASIC.) With these two articles, plus twenty years of other coverage in mid-sized British papers, plus some weak progress toward NCREATIVE, plus a fair bit of woman-bites-dog coverage on the beach sculptures, it is starting to look less weak. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 05:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no enduring notability here. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Russ Woodroofe. The NPROF arguments are coming from the wrong direction and obscuring the issue; there's enough coverage elsewhere to suggest notability. This has far too varied coverage to be a BLP1E case, so that form doesn't work either. Vaticidalprophet 14:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, does not fit into WP:NACADEMIC, RSA does not count as JPL explained correctly CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment does reference to her from a Venice Biennale artist Regine Bartsch add to the case for Keep? <ref>https://www.independent.ie/entertainment/the-world-has-become-so-serious-its-shocking-38122367.html</ref> Kaybeesquared (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. Somebody mentioning she put her work in gallery in England. Not really. scope_creepTalk 16:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. So I'm seeing !votes that say she doesn't meet WP:NPROF (so delete), and !votes that say she doesn't meet WP:NPROF, but does meet WP:BASIC (so keep). Perhaps some of the delete !voters could discuss WP:BASIC. The latter looks solid to me, but I will endeavor to be persuadable. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Has anybody got WP:THREE refs that are solid that can prove WP:BASIC?? scope_creepTalk 00:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    scope creep, we've got two fairly substantial interviews in national-scope newspapers for significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. There are a good number of reasonable possibilities to round out the WP:THREE, and I can't quite choose: lots of coverage of beach sculptures (WP:BLP2E?), there's a local bbc radio interview (although it isn't posted online, so I'm not sure how substantive it is). In my search, I also hit a lot of articles that looked possibly substantial but were behind paywalls -- there's one from the Financial Times in the article, for instance; I'm also seeing paywalled results in The Times. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough quality coverage on consider notable. The guardian and telegraph source are lifestyle pieces and don't pay tribute to their professional accomplishments; just discuss their home decor. Ew3234 (talk) 03:57, 11 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/Caroline_Wiseman&oldid=1023169597"