Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myra Greene

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 Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myra Greene[edit]

Notability not established. No major publications. No major exhibitions. No independent sources cited. Page reads like an extended resume. Evidence of conflict of interest, non-neutral point of view. Doesn't meet criteria for WP:CREATIVE. Shelly No (talk) 06:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COI is not a valid reason for deletion and you provided no evidence that you tried to look up sources. Deletion is only the proper course when such sources cannot be found (which would negate the keep arguments below). - Mgm|^(talk) 11:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Extensive Google and Yahoo searches turn up nothing notable. Some blogs, a few solo shows at minor venues. The MoCP "review" cited is not a review, but rather a description of some pieces in it owns, more or less an advertisement for its collection - it has apparently not been published. And even if it were, a single review does not establish notability. While the subject may in fact be a very good artist, she has, to date, not met the criteria for notability. Please see WP:CREATIVE . Author fails to establish notability per these guidelines. No evidence exists that she is "widely cited" , has received "significant critical attention" or represented in the permanent collections of "several notable galleries or museums." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelly No (talk • contribs) 19:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Well, if you really read what the google results give, you'll see that the subject meets WP:CREATIVE. I don't really know about photographers and arts, but here what I've found (and according to WP:CREATIVE):
1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
  - The subject is an Assistant Professor in the Photography Department at Columbia College Chicago. That's what I read from her bio here.
  - An essay about her work written by Carla Williams (an independent artist). I found the copy here.
  - Another essay about her work written by Jeffreen Hayers & Bennie Johnson (curators). I found the copy here.
  - The subject was one of the judges for the 2007 Light Work Grants in Photography. I found the press release here.
2. The person's work 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, or had works in many significant libraries. Here's the list of her exhibitions that I've found from google:
  - 2006 Maryland Art Place exhibition: press release.
  - 2008 Portfolio review event by the Santa Fe Center: here. This what the event is about: Review Santa Fe is a juried portfolio review event. It is a two-day conference for photographers who have created a significant project or series and are seeking wider recognition. Up to 100 photographers meet with esteemed curators, editors, art directors, publishers, gallery and agency reps, and alternative market professionals.
  - And of course her exhibition at the MoCP Chicago: here.
  - Was in the exhibition gallery at the New Jersey City University Art Department in 2008. I got it here

I think there are more, but those are enough to show that the subject is not only just a new artist. However, as I said below, the current article needs more inclusion of reliable sources (I gave examples I found above). It needs also a major revision, because the article still looks like a portfolio. Dekisugi (talk) 09:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I really read them. Please don't be offended but your assertion that you don't really know about photographers and arts is evident in your reply. It makes it difficult to for you know what is a significant achievement, and what is a typical credential for an emerging artist. Additionally many of your citations are from the subjects own website, which can't be classified as an independent source.

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. Being a professor is not evidence of notability and isn't relevant. Can two essays that have not appeared in major or national publications really constitute wide citation?

The subject was one of the judges for the 2007 Light Work Grants in Photography. Academics are frequently asked to participate in this kind of judging.

Maryland Art Place is not a significant venue. If the exhibition had been significant, it would have been picked up by other venues, and widely reviewed.

2008 Portfolio review event by the Santa Fe Center: Review Santa Fe is a juried portfolio review event." This is an event that emerging artists pay to attend. Emerging. "nough said.

And of course her exhibition at the MoCP Chicago. Once again - this is not a review, it is a catalogue page for their collection. The subject never had an exhibition at MoCP. Please read more carefully.

Was in the exhibition gallery at the New Jersey City University Art Department in 2008. Again, a typical credential for an emerging artist, but not a significant venue or exhibition.

Being "not only just a new artist" is not the same as being notable. Would you really expect to see this person in an encyclopedia? If so, I can provide entries for about 4000 artists you've never heard of with similar credentials. There are thousands of artists who have had a few non-profit, and university shows. But my understanding is that wikipedia doesn't exist to provide information about good artists with lots of potential. But rather those who already have made significant contributions. I think the issue here is the meaning of the word significant in this context. With all due respect, Dekisugi, your professed ignorance of the art photography scene makes it impossible for you to know what is and isn't significant. (Shelly No (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Good argument, but I still on the keep based on the verifiability policy. Dekisugi (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but please improve its verifiability. It meets notability guidelines, especially a small review from the MoCP Chicago (one of the references there). However, it really needs more reviews, articles, and other reliable sources; not from its own website. It also needs a major rewrite. It looks now like a portfolio, not an encylopaedia article. Dekisugi (talk) 08:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do those reliable sources exist then? You gave no indication. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first reference in the article: here. I don't know for other reliable sources, that's why I'd ask for more. Dekisugi (talk) 12:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Persuasive argument by nom has changed my mind. What appeared notable is simply transient fame. Keep per Dekisugi - Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting the general notability guidelines. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found only 8 news articles mentioning Myra Green as photographer, with a few appearing to be false positives. Generally, they are not about Green, and mention her marginally. The apparent absence of news articles featuring Green's work as a photographer suggests lack of enough notability to pass WP:N.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite the length, there is nothing in the article which establishes notability. The lack of evidence for notability extends to accessible potential sources. Nuttah (talk) 10:08, 28 November 2008 (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.