Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Meneley (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Much like the first discussion, there is no clear consensus here and we have two sides sticking to their guns. The previous AFD was only closed three months ago and it does not appear anything has changed. I do not feel a relisting is appropriate in light of the clear split and the unlikelihood that further discussion would yield an actionable outcome. Before relisting I would implore anyone reading these concluding comments to read this and the first nomination and ask yourself whether new information has come to light that is likely to lead to a consensus to delete. KaisaL (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Barbara Meneley
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:CREATIVE on the basis of the present article. Where are the works in the permanent collections of museums? Where is the substantial published criticism of her work? There are two scholarly articles listed, one she wrote, one is a article contain sections written by different artists, one of which is her. Neither of these are about her. I sse local newspaper articles about a local artist--this never meets the GNG because it is not sufficiently selective. I see various blogs and informal publications, none of which show notability. This is the product of an editathon, one where most of the articles created there have been already deleted. I very much support the goals of art+feminism, and helped lead with some of the NYC workshops. I advise   people at such events to work first on the unambiguously notable, specifically in order to keep the work from being not just rejected, but even questioned, and i would certainly have advised against the creation of this article.  DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  freshacconci  talk to me  13:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  freshacconci  talk to me  13:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Agricola44 (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep She passes GNG. The idea that local sources are not reliable independent sources is absolutely wrong: local sources are independent, published sources. She is in the Regina Leader-Post in 2 cited articles. Aside from those sources, however, she is also written about at the Canadian Art foundation and is part of two scholarly articles from the RACAR: revue d'art Canadienne/ Canadian Art Review on her work on JSTOR. The fact that this was a product of an editathon is irrelevant. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The Canadian Art link is a press release, not a reliable source.  freshacconci  talk to me  01:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The RACAR article "Practices: As if from nowhere… artists’ thoughts about research-creation" is written by each represented artist: Meneley wrote her own section and there's only a brief mention in the article intro. I don't see a second RACAR article in the references. Since Meneley is the co-author, this cannot be used as a reliable source.  freshacconci  talk to me  01:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment, i don't see in WP:BASIC anything about significant criticism or "local coverage/sources don't count", instead i see "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable..." and if some sources are not of substantial depth "then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" so the Regina Leader articles should be ok. Meneley is also the recipient of a 2015 Saskatchewan Foundation for the Arts Award in/for intermedia (although this may also be seen as trivial/non-significant?) Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The Saskatchewan Foundation for the Arts awards are not awards in the conventional sense. They are grants. Meneley received $3000-6000 (the link doesn't specify which) to "support the development and completion of a series of interactive and kinetic book works." Artists' grants do not establish notability as they are a regular part of being a professional artist. Much like exhibitions, they only establish that the artist exists and produces work, not that they are notable.  freshacconci  talk to me  13:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, basically for reasons in first AfD: this person isn't notable so much as "locally famous" within the feminist Regina art scene. The common feeling about local sources, here expressed by Megalibrarygirl (above), has an important caveat: while we can assume they're reliable, they really only prove existence (they're not selective). It would be an entirely different matter to be in any of the larger metro or national papers (WaPo, WSJ, LAT, NYT, USAT, CT, etc) – that would be a slam dunk. David astutely pointed all this out in the lede (along with an extensive disclaimer so as not to be accused of bias). The other sources are mostly blogs and I hope this does not end-up like the previous AfD, which was mostly based on WP:ILIKEIT. Contrary to one of David's statements, many of the articles from that editathon have not been deleted, but they certainly should be re-examined, as they all have the same question of whether their subjects are just "locally famous". My interpretation of articles like this remains the same: the goal seems to be to create articles on people that some group feels is under-represented, rather than letting the organic process of article creation on notable, encyclopedic people happen naturally, the result being a raft of new bios on increasingly obscure individuals. Unchecked, it will gradually keep pushing WP to nothing more than an online directory. Agricola44 (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC).
 * Even if a subject is "locally famous" that can be enough to pass GNG. The assertion that local sources are not selective is incorrect. Local sources certainly are selective: they write about people who are notable in the community. I agree that this article is not a "slam dunk," but I think the sources are sufficient for GNG taken all together. I'm not !voting WP:ILIKEIT-- I don't care about who she is or about her art: she passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Megalibrarygirl's point within itself surpasses in importance but is given further support by the additional aspect that a deep search discloses that the "local" sources were run in mirrored syndication in several province's media (particularly BC). My researches found that the search engines mostly credited these to the local point of origin e.g. Regina Leader as is apparently Canadian custom, and within the article's references list these mirrors were appropriately not listed off separately as if they were completely different articles. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: Regional recognition is enough to pass GNG, and here we have that.  Coverage in neutral, third-party sources exists and it is enough.  Regina, Saskatchewan is a major regional center, and when you add in her ethnographic work, that also is a factor to consider strongly in keeping.  People who work with First Nations issue and ethnography often do not get the coverage in the mainstream press that the average rapper can get for spitting on the sidewalk.  This individual is an artist who meets GNG.    Montanabw (talk)  00:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The Leader Post is one of the two largest newspapers in Saskatchwan. Articles in the American press as cited above "larger metro or national papers (WaPo, WSJ, LAT, NYT, USAT, CT, etc)" are irrelevant for a Canadian artist. As there are only two national papers in Canada, both based in Toronto, being reported in the newspaper of the capital of the province is significant and combined with the other sources Blackfish and Horowitz reviews, meets the threshold of GNG, which does not exclude local or regional sources. Inclusion of her works in permanent collections of museums is but one criteria, as is significant critical attention, of creative professionals. As was pointed out in the previous AfD, her work, Prairie History Redux was the primary exhibit in a six-month-long curated exhibition, which meets "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition" of "creative". The doomsday prediction of nothing more than an online directory, is a tired argument for IDON'TLIKEIT SusunW (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, the RACAR article is co-written with Meneley. As a reliable source, it's not useful. The only sources that are currently given that are not apparently connected to Meneley are the Leader Post reviews and Blackflash. The task here is to evaluate those sources to see if they go beyond brief mentions and if those few sources are enough for GNG.  freshacconci  talk to me  19:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * While you suggested it, I see no co-author credit. Meneley and other artists were interviewed they aren't co-authors. The analysis of all of the artists' statements is done by Horowitz. When one challenges every single comment which is not in agreement with one's own, it begins to look like one is badgering others and not AGF that they have analyzed the material objectively. SusunW (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Pointing out what I consider to be an error is badgering? Talk about not assuming good faith. This is a discussion. It is meant to go back and forth until a clear consensus is reached. If someone posts something in error, it's anyone's obligation to point it out. As for the RACAR article, there is a very short introduction, 2.5 pages. The rest is statements by the artists, each starting with "by Barbara Meneley" etc. That is a co-authorship. And there is a working relationship with the credited author and the artists, thus bringing the issue of conflict of interest to the fore. I'm not suggesting it's a COI to work together and collaborate on a peer-reviewed journal. However, to use that as a second-party source is highly questionable.  freshacconci  talk to me  00:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you repeatedly point it out. However, policy states she must meet GNG "or" Creative. Within the criteria of creative all criteria do not have to be met, either A, B, C or D. Thus, I think she meets both standards, which is more than enough. When the Smithsonian says the average temporary exhibit is 2-6 weeks and several other sites suggest 6-8 weeks maximum, it seems clear that a 6 month exhibit is a significant one. The Montreal Museum of Fine Arts surveyed museums of Canada and found that there was no standard exhibit time, but a typical range was from "4 weeks per year to 6 months". They also recommended that exhibitions on paper or which were light sensitive never exceed "20 weeks", i.e. 5 months, of exhibition, adding weight that a 6 month exhibition is a substantial one. SusunW (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. It looks like the same dynamics from the first AfD are playing-out here. Would the proponents of keeping the article consider the following? We remove all the blogs, pamphlets, museum programs/announcements, etc. from the source list, which would subsequently allow us to have a much more focused discussion on those sources upon which there is no dispute. Agricola44 (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC).
 * Delete. No improvement since the first Afd. Sources are local interest only, no national or international sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC).
 * Weak delete for the same reasons I gave in the first AfD (weak and local coverage), with the hope that this AfD will not be as overrun by special pleading for lowered standards for biographies of disadvantaged groups as we had the previous time around. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: How about fair standards for groups that are routinely ignored, belittled and dismissed?  That works for me.   Montanabw (talk)  08:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. As I said, the posture is pretty much the same as in the first AfD: advocating for less bias versus maintaining standards. Articles like this will come to AfD again and again unless there is some way to settle the issue somewhat more permanently. I proposed above removing all blogs, pamphlets, museum programs/announcements, etc. from the source list, which would subsequently allow us to have a much more focused discussion on those sources upon which there is no dispute. What do you think of this idea? It may allow us to move forward in a more objective way. Agricola44 (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC).
 * Weak keep There seem to me to be 3 main aspects. 1: As SusunW has convincingly elucidated, the sources and context show that the subject of the article meets one of the CREATIVE guidelines (4b). As written currently, only one element needs to be met -- not all. Thus much of the criticism as not meeting other parameters is technically off topic. The situation is problematic only because A) 4b is quite obviously the "weakest" of the elements listed, and I would imagine uniquely expands the CREATIVE pool as a single parameter more than any other element, and because B) the subject does meet the benchmark but only by a narrow margin. In general, I would not be opposed at all to seeing 4b rewritten to tighten it up. (It seems to me that this would likely be the essence of where User talk:Agricola44's thoughts would end up tapping into from another direction.) 2: As SusunW's careful visiting of the sources also finds, the Horowitz editorial's analysis of the subject's context is national level recognition. As has already been stated, it is independent of the subject despite the confusion of some input above. The editorial itself makes this clear enough, explicitly stating that the named editor worked with the journal's established editorial pool, and explaining the approach that was taken. (If there is "special pleading", and I am not sure there is, its legitimacy would come from what is overtly stated in that academic source.) That said, the depth of Horowitz' analysis could be judged by some as less than comprehensive and the style of the editorial is quite academic and far from a nice read. Additional points for and against the editorial were included in my input at the first AfD; further reference can be made there rather than pulling every point to this AfD. 3: I have always judged this article as fence-straddling and difficult to categorize, which is consistent with the obvious challenge both AfDs have had in trying to get to a consensus. The community has become more selective in the parameters accepted for porn star notability over the years. We could certainly tighten up the standards for medieval bishops some day I suppose. Accordingly, if the purpose of this early repeat AfD is to "guage the temperature" for working toward resetting 4b with more selective language, using this as a precedent, then I would understand and be completely comfortable changing my input here as an immediate courtesy to DGG. However, if this AfD's task is to categorize the article within the present framework, it's a weak but clear keep. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:29, 30 June 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.