Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audrey Bagley


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Audrey Bagley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable artist lacking non-trivial support. red dogsix (talk) 01:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: A Highbeam search returns nothing and Google returns the usual social media and primary sources. No evidence of WP:CREATIVE or broader biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 11:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete No independent sources indicate notability under any criteria. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Independent sources updated do indicate notability - see criteria listed. Edited- Irrelevant information removed from page. evidence of WP:CREATIVE or broader biographical notability is provided. Under section 3 of WP:CREATIVE The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.Wikilady03 (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Response by request. For Wikilady03 (talk), You messaged me on my talk page with a request to reconsider my DELETE recommendation based on your argument above. There is no question the subject has worked on notable projects, verified by credit lists, such as IMDB, that are independent of her self-promotion (i.e. Sealoch Studio) The problem is the role the subject has played does not meet WP:CREATIVE definition of having "created or played a major role in co-creating...” For example regarding the Pixar films, her name does not appear in the credits among the creators, key personnel or supervisors. Instead it is included among hundreds of names listed in either the special effects or animation departments, a dozen or more who perform her same function. Are we to suggest everyone who worked on these films merits a wikipedia entry? Regarding the music videos her contributions, per her own website, appear of a similar nature in that they are performed under someone else’s overall direction. And for what it’s worth it appears none of these videos are particularly notable. Sealoch Studio is the subject’s own business so it’s mention in the article is both non-independent and promotional. ShelbyMarion (talk) 09:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Response by request. For ShelbyMarion (talk) I understand your points, but the subject is listed in books as a particular Artist of Main Characters with information listed. You include accusations of non-independant and promotional off little research by yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilady03 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Response. For Wikilady03 (talk), Looking at your user history I see you have been an editor on wikipedia for all of one week, primarily to promote the interests of Audrey Bagley by creating pages for her, a gallery that sales/or includes her works, and a magazine that has printed at least one of her works. The longer you engage yourself with the AfD section of wikipedia you will come to find that my “little research” is a whole heck of a lot more than many AfD editors who will simply google the name “Audrey Bagley” and find there is not much evidence of notability. On the other hand, I—along with many of the more engaged editors—will actively click links and check the provided references in an effort to validate a subjects notability.  Which is why I perused every link of the Sealoch website, and scoured every listing of film credits to locate her name within the hierarchy of credits. In this search to validate the subject’s notability, I have actually done much more research (and have been willing to peel back many more layers) to try to KEEP rather than DELETE this page. I suppose the accusation of “little research” (which offends me, BTW, considering the amount of extra effort I put into this) is because I didn’t address the reference to the subject being identified on page 175 of The Art of Toy Story 3? Fair enough. I’m unwilling to either purchase or hunt down a copy simply to debate a different point of view on the internet. If Audrey Bagley is the subject of the book or of a lengthy chapter within that is significant to the book’s existence, then perhaps it could be cited as a reference indicative of notability. But my “little research” of this reference, which includes perusing the books’ listing on both amazon.com and GoodReads, and even reading some of the customer and professional reviews within, indicates that not to be the case. Thus, the reference is so trivial that I didn’t feel it worth addressing. By the way, a subsequent check reveals a YouTube promotional video from the publisher that satisfies my belief that the reference is trivial: thumbing through the pages it’s tough to argue the book’s mention of Audrey Bagley is significant at all. For the curious it is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIKteILoZqw.  Any how, regardless of the subject’s talent and capabilities, I simply don’t think Audrey Bagley, based on the references provided, is notable enough to merit a wikipedia entry. I’ll gladly change my opinion if you can provide better references. Especially those independent of promoting the subject’s self-interests. In the mean time just be glad no one has nominated for deletion your other creations re: Chopsticks NY magazine or the Archimedes Gallery. One is a free weekly and the other a 4 year old retail/exhibit business. The Archimedes is probably too new to have the name awareness in the Pacific Northwest as of some of Cannon Beaches more established galleries such as Haystack or White Bird (neither of whom have wikipedia pages), but it seems like a cool place. But with it’s single reference being it’s own website, it might be considered self promotional unless you can source more independent references. And that WOULD NOT be locale coverage that are result of the gallery's own promotion (i.e. announcements, press releases, etc...and unfortunately most of them are.) The magazine, on the other hand, despite it’s narrow readership and small circulation (esp. for a freebee) may pass muster for mention in a stub for NYC metro periodicals, should you decide to create one.  This advice is offered to help you be a productive wikipedia editor, and what to do to "save" pages of your own creation. I am a thorough researcher and am willing to go that extra mile to save articles that have merit but are poorly sourced. I'll even help find the sources. But you have to understand that sources need to be put up to scrutiny as being notable every bit as much as the nominated subject. Good luck. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete if the 'artist' was actually notable for their role in the films, there would be articles, media coverage and book items to show for it.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 22:59, 3 July 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.