Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Nowell Graham

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Nowell Graham[edit]

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

I tried hard to establish notability (GNG and WP:ARTIST) for Margaret Nowell Graham. You can see my attempt to draft a new article here.

She has one painting that seems to be mentioned in a few places, but, no significant coverage about her work.
The one mention of her in a book about American watercolor artists is a Wikipedia book, FYI.

The other sources provided are mere mentions about a fund named after her.

I can't figure out how she passes our WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST guidelines. Perhaps someone else will have better luck. SarahStierch (talk) 07:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it's a harsh nomination because she was active over 100 years ago when the achievements of women were less valued and less recorded. The article claims her paintings are in the public collections of two notable institutions - if that were verifiable I'd advocate a 'weak keep'. However, the Reynolda House collections are searchable online and there's no longer trace of her there. She is mentioned in a 1996 news article about her painting of Reynolda House - maybe the painting has subsequently been passed on? This magazine article suggests they still hold copyright. Sionk (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean it to be a "harsh" nomination. It's just tough - I know there is a systemtic bias about historical women (and anyone who isn't a white dude, generally, based on my line of research work), I just am really struggling to find much, outside of calling the institutions. It never makes me happy to nominate articles like this, but, the Wikipedian in me would feel like I didn't do my "job" if I didn't bring it to discussion. SarahStierch (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Keep Notability isn't temporary - but sources are. That she's got that much after so long (including a fund named after her) is saying good things for her notability, especially with the anti-female bias. Neonchameleon (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This artist defintely painted a view of the Reynolda House Museum, although I don't know why it isn't listed in their holdings. I note that Reynolda House is now part of Wake Forest, so that may explain the listing if her work was moved from one to the other. She is also mentioned in the UNC Chapel Hill art archives. Very tentative, I admit, but enough to minimally clear WP:GNG, perhaps? --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The work at UNC that you mentioned is a part of the North Carolina Collection, and more likely than not was a correspondence between her and another more prominent figure, though it could have been a work of art. The archival format indicated by the worldcat entry and my further research to the UNC library catalog is normally used in storing correspondence. I'm not entirely sure that having material contained in the NCC makes one notable, because the collection contains every undergrad thesis published before the mid-2000s, and I believe they still store all graduate theses and dissertations (they may have moved to electronic, though). It also contains many historical phonebooks and letters between people who may or may not be notable, but simply may be connected to a notable event in North Carolina history. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as explained above, I'm not entirely sure the NCC source establishes notability, nor am I convinced that her painting of Reynolda House meets the criteria of WP:ARTIST. It is a borderline case, but I'm not convinced that this merits inclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2013 (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.