Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arabella Dorman


 * 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. Sam Walton (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Arabella Dorman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

She does not meet the qualifications for visual artists at WP:CREATIVE--no works in the permanent collections of major museums, no extensive critical discussion of her work. As the claimed notability is only as an artist, I don't see how it justifies an encyclopedia article.  DGG ( talk ) 21:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, I don't understand why the nominator hasn't done basic due process of a quick search for sources. The subject clearly meets WP:GNG, by the substantial news coverage in national newspapers over a period of many years. For example The Observer and Telegraph articles already cited in the article, as well as etc. Her "Flight" installation has probably had enough coverage in its own right to also meet the WP:CREATIVE #4 criteria. Sionk (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as I concur with the nomination, there are no museum collections or other convincing factors here; the 2 Guardian links are in fact 1 published one, and the other is still too unconvincing; overall, there's still not the genuine convincing substance for an article. SwisterTwister   talk  22:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: as the creator of the article, I considered that the coverage in major newspapers, over several years, satisfied WP:GNG; the BBC 100 Women was an extra claim to notability. If I can find time I'll add info from Sionk's refs above. Pam  D  22:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, passes GNG by a country mile --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Those are simply mere mentions and listings, from local newspapers. There's no automatic inherited notability because of a BBC PR campaign in which any simple person is being profiled. SwisterTwister   talk  00:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobody has made the claim that the BBC campaign gives automatic notability. Notability is shown by the significant coverage in serious national, not local, newspapers, and the BBC campaign doesn't create some sort of negative notability that can be subtracted from that. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. If we are to go by WP:CREATIVE then she clearly satisfies point 4(c) with significant critical attention as demonstrated above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: The given sources provide bylined articles on the subject's work by prominent art critics, meeting WP:ARTIST criteria 4(b) and (c) and possibly also criterion 3. (I am also baffled by The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph and The Observer being dismissed above as "local newspapers". If that is so, then so too are the New York Times, Le Monde, etc., which would evaporate any criterion for distinguishing notable media from the Little Puddlington Advertiser.) AllyD (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The criteria in WP:CREATIVE are in addition to and not in place of the general notability criteria which the subject meets.
 * Keep. She has received reviews and substantial coverage in all the national broadsheet newspapers of the UK, much of which pre-dates the BBC award. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * KEEP Arabella_Dorman article clearly meets GNG. The article is well referenced from reliable sources. The 2014 article in The Guardian is a good example of the genre of writing that finds Dorman an interesting subject. All that is required for a standalone article is that a subject is significantly interesting that the media writes about the topic, in this case a person. Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;
 * Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG with the references already in the article. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep As well as the good sources already used, there have been various articles about her, or partly about her, in The Times and Sunday Times. I've used some to expand the article a little. Lelijg (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject fails WP:ARTIST; there really is no critical assessment of her work, it has not been collected, nothing like a monograph has been published about her work etc. but I do think she meets WP:GNG. Mduvekot (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Commment I consider only professional sources as RS for significant criticism onartists., and nominated on that basis. WP:CREATIVE has generally been interpreted as a limitation on the GNG for people in the field, not an alternative. Otherwise it would be meaningless, since anyone with significant critical attention would inherently meet the GNG also. DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, though that is only your own interpretation. The first sentence of "Basic criteria" and the first two sentences of "Additional criteria" (pertinent to WP:CREATIVE) contradict this. I think WP:CREATIVE is more useful for pre-internet people where if, for example, they have works in important collections, we can reasonably presume they were widely written about at some point. Dorman is active in the age of the internet, so we can reasonably expect to find (and have found) a significant number of online sources too. Sionk (talk) 07:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am here to agree with Sionk. If what you describe is the general interpretation then part of WP:Notability needs to be rewritten as well as the sentences Sionk refers to. Point 1 of WP:Notability is completely clear that either the general or the additional criteria lead to a presumption of notability and WP:Notability (people) is listed as an "approved" additional criterion. Also, the latter does not disclaim the former. Of course topics which pass the criteria are only presumed to be notable but WP:OUTCOMES does not suggest that artists are commonly expected to require a greater standard. However, like you, I find that many of the additional criteria have redundant material that merely repeats what the general criteria have to say. My interpretation is merely that they are written rather slackly and not that they say the opposite of what is intended. Thincat (talk) 08:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I rather like the idea that in order to be notable-as-an-artist, the sources need to be about the subject in their professional capacity as an artist, and the authors of these sources ought to have credentials to match (they're professional scholars, critics etc.) I'm not a fan of articles that survive an AfD because an otherwise reliable source featured someone in their lifestyle section for something unrelated to their artistic practice. But my understanding so far has been that WP:artist provides additional criteria, and that it only comes into play if GNG is not met. In other words, the subject needs to pass GNG OR ARTIST, not GNG AND ARTIST. Am I wrong about that? Mduvekot (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no reason I can think of to impose higher standards of notability on artists. Of course, if the news/book coverage wasn't about their art they would be notable for something else other than art. This is all academic anyway, she's been written about in depth by a variety of serious news sources. Sionk (talk) 06:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - I simply want to comment that the Keep votes themselves have in fact acknowledged there's no museum collections and that's what would help, therefore it shows and also shows what we've established before at AfD, museum collections are significant so why simply say "Let's keep it anyway since she's known on the Internet" or "Hey, it's sourced!", even though there's no collections". SwisterTwister   talk  19:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * How would you measure performance artists, sound artists or site-specific artists (such as Dorman)? Some types of art can't be 'collected', so we rely on WP:GNG (something I know you don't subscribe to). Sionk (talk) 06:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And because of this WP:CREATIVE has 4 criterias and not one, on which museum collections is one of, but not the only. Nowadays many modern art museums prefer to work as an exhibition space and not as a collecting organisation. For example, most of Photography Museums do not have permanent collection. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.