Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Cunningham (painter)

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Cunningham (painter)[edit]

[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)

Article was first created by user WANAWALT, who may be William Anawalt. WANAWALT was also the creator of the Wikipedia page for Sasha Anawalt, Mr. Anawalt's wife and Mr. Cunninghmam's daughter. This may be an attempt to artificially raise the profile and internet presence of Mr. Cunningham and is likely in violation of Wikipedia's guidelines.

Beyond that, the article lacks sufficient citation for most of its material. The first paragraph of Mr. Cunningham's biography includes three citations to additional text, but it is unclear if those texts mention him at all. There are no citations for his career page or the recognition and awards page, and there is only one for his publications. The citation for his contributions to founding the New York School of Art is a single mention in a brief letter written by Barney Hodes to New York Magazine in 1996. Still, Mr. Cunningham has his own Wikipedia page and Mr. Hodes does not, raising the question again of whether Mr. Cunningham's page was created organically and if he meets the notability requirements to merit his own page.

Due to the lack of citation and creation by a user who is related to Mr. Cunningham, the background behind this article's creation raises significant doubt over the notability of Mr. Cunningham. If Mr. Cunningham is notable, there should be no issue further fleshing out this article with proper, legitimate citations. If not, the article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by O811RT1 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is very curious that this AfD was the nominator's third edit to the encyclopedia, and that they have only made nine total edits. They also do not have a User page ~~nor a Talk page~~. Netherzone (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources in the article and those found (or perhaps "not found") in a search tend confirm what the nomination says: his importance is puffed by the article. Possibly (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A few things for the nominator:

"The first paragraph of Mr. Cunningham's biography includes three citations to additional text, but it is unclear if those texts mention him at all." You can't seriously think we'll discount sources because you haven't looked for them. Dude, no. That's not how it works here.

"There are no citations for his career page or the recognition and awards page, and there is only one for his publications." We have something called "tags" for this sort of situation. Simple Googling can provide at least some of the sources.

"The citation for his contributions to founding the New York School of Art is a single mention in a brief letter written by Barney Hodes to New York Magazine in 1996." I wonder if I can find more?

"Still, Mr. Cunningham has his own Wikipedia page and Mr. Hodes does not..." No. There is an article on Cunningham. He does not have a page.

"...Raising the question again of whether Mr. Cunningham's page was created organically and if he meets the notability requirements to merit his own page." No, no, no. Writing a letter to New York Magazine doesn't put Hodes ahead. Even if it did, it isn't a race. The most "worthy" or "notable" does not get an article first.

Some people care about whether article creation is "organic". Others, like me, care less about this and more about whether the subject is encyclopedic. Some of us are suspicious of people who join Wikipedia to get articles deleted and we sure notice when such people don't have the patience to learn how things work. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm holding off on !voting on this for now until more research can be done. So far I've found one museum collection here, ~~and an odd, but long-ish article on him in Wall Street International Magazine here.~~ Whether or not he co-founded the New York Academy of Art is disputed, according to the WP article on the school. I am leaning towards delete unless another museum collection or more press is found. Netherzone (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for holding off on voting. I love when people do that. :) I have been able to verify several things, including his involvement in the founding of the schools, in contemporary sources. Maybe the New York Academy of Art has forgotten him. Thanks for sharing WSJ; I was able to incorporate a little of that. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are two other artists named Francis Cunningham, so I'm trying to be cognizant of who is who before coming to any conclusions. Netherzone (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Netherzone, Wall Street International Magazine is a vanity press. Did you notice they don't offer paid subscriptions and have no ads? Vexations (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Vexations, thank you for letting me know, I admire your rigor and research skills. I had no idea it was a vanity publication. I'll strike my comment regarding it as a possible reliable source. Netherzone (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets WP:GNG and maybe subject-specific guidelines as an artist too. I am finding a number of feature articles on him in newspapers.com. Haven't checked NewspaperArchive or Proquest yet. Will do so as I have time and add sources to the article. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Won notable awards, plus coverage found. Not sure if being in a college museum counts towards notability since University of Richmond has 4,350 students at a time so its like a small town. Does the museum have a lot of visitors? Berkshire Museum seems like a significant art museum, so having some of his work there adds to his notability. Dream Focus 03:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 15:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC) DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:HEY article improvements by DiamondRemley39. ~~Delete~~ ~~Neutral~~ - I looked deeply into this entry since academic painting is not an interest of mine, and I wanted to give it the benefit of the doubt. Here's my thoughts: The press is local, not major national or international art publications like Artforum, Art in America, that publish art criticism within a historical framework. Some are listings which don’t count towards notability. The one closest to an in-depth piece is from a vanity press (Wall St. Intern’l) therefore does not count. The NY Sun citation is a three sentence mention. A number of the citations don’t mention him at all, but rather mention artists who are name-dropped in the article. Several citations are primary sources from his affiliations like the NY Academy of Art, Art Students League, these don’t count. The Berkshire Museum collection is unverifiable per a collections search or digital archive search. Re: Richmond Museum, it’s a small university museum that did not purchase his work, it was donated by someone. Unlikely that a curatorial process was involved. His publications don’t seem to be reviewed. The “Works”, most of which are unverifiable seem to be illustrations in technical publications, or things he wrote himself. Regarding the Awards, Bogliosco is a residency fellowship. The one that would count is the Tiffany Foundation, unable to verify from citation which seems to be about his teaching in relation to the Art Student’s League. I’m not sure about the other awards as it seems they may have some sort of “membership” criteria, other editors may know more about this. So to my mind, it seems his notability is hung on that one Tiffany grant - the sum total of everything does not a notable artist make, therefore does not pass WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. (Sorry this is so long!) Netherzone (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my !vote to neutral. I agree with a few other editors in this discussion that the nomination itself is questionable and there seems to be a subtext to consider. The nominator has made very few or no edits outside of this nom and nominating his daughter's article for deletion (it passed GNG); seems that they might be here solely to take down these two articles for some personal reason rather than build an encyclopedia. There have been no other edits they have made since the nominations. That just does not sit right with me, and I think the nom is flawed. Netherzone (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to do a bit of research to see if I can confirm the Tiffany Foundation grant. Their official website only goes back to 1979 and I'm not finding coverage of the grants in newspapers of the time (which makes sense, as those might read like press releases). DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DiamondRemley39: I'd be very dubious about using grants to determine notability, as there are many different types, and many are given to facilitate projects rather than as a recognition of notability. Also, in this case his 1973 grant predates the $20,000 Tiffany grant that is well-known today. I found this about the Tiffany foundation: "At various points it also purchased work from up-and-coming artists for donation to museum collections, ran an apprenticeship program, and made direct, individual grants. By 1980, these various activities coalesced into the program for which the Tiffany Foundation is recognized for today: the biennial awarding of substantial grant money to thirty different artists". Possibly (talk) 08:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm holding off on posting a vote as I'm frankly of two minds about this one. The initial article had major issues for objectivity (based on possible family connections by the article creator with the subject), however, content-wise I think this is getting closer to meeting the notability standard, but not quite there yet. Jmbranum (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found a few features in local papers but that isn't enough, there has to be at least some regional or wider source coverage. Curiocurio (talk) 20:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of local interest only. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he evidently passes WP:GNG based on the number of pre-internet news articles, as well as the awards and, I would say, being an academician of the National Academy of Design. Possibly addition sources have been added since the nomination was made (or if they were already there, the nomination would be very mean). For someone who is still alive but was active decades ago, the article appears to be well sourced (the 1980 Berkshire Eagle article gives a good biography of him). Sionk (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good note on National Academy of Design. I was unfamiliar with it before this article; it looks prestigious/exclusive. Regarding the "very mean" comment-- as you probably saw above--this nomination was drafted by someone who joined Wikipedia to and has made no edits outside of trying to get this article and the article on Sasha Anawalt deleted--someone who may have a problem with either subject or a family member. How telling that we have tags for COI in article writing, but not in the motivation of deletion nominators. If this person succeeds, it'll be despite the subject meeting WP:GNG. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (weakish) Much of career pre-internet, but seems sufficiently notable. Noting potential issues with nom too. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The membership of the National Academy of Design, which is a form of peer recognition for excellence means that the subject meets criterion 1 of WP:ARTIST. Vexations (talk) 17:25, 3 January 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.