Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernadette Vigil


 * 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. Closing early: nomination withdrawn and no delete !votes left. Randykitty (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Bernadette Vigil

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject fails to pass WP:BASIC or WP:ARTIST. For WP:BASIC, the three best sources I could find (after some web browsing, news browsing, and 5 pages of digging through Google Scholar) are this passing mention of Vigil's work, this brief mention in a book specifically about "Hispano Arts and Culture of New Mexico", and probably most significantly, this article from the Santa Fe New Mexican, which has less to do with Vigil or even her art itself as much as it does drama about an oversight from the local government; I would argue that none of these qualify as "significant coverage". The rest are either passing to a point of being not worthy of mention or primary. The only unlikely hope I can see for notability is if the coverage in Latin American Women Artists of the United States (2008) is extensive enough to almost single-handedly justify an article. Also fails all four criteria of WP:ARTIST, as mentioned before. Note: Subject also known as "Doña Bernadette Vigil".  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  06:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

As promised, Withdraw per 's rationale of WP:HEY due to 's significant improvements.


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - the name definitely rings a bell. I'll do some research, sometimes regionally-based artists who work in vernacular forms are not received in the same manner as the mainstream New York-Paris-Dusseldorf-Tokyo art world. The solo show at Millicent Rogers Museum is a big deal. So is the solo show at Owings-Dewey Fine Art (one of the best galleries in Santa Fe - they produce museum-quality shows.) As to the group shows, these are quite prestigious: Museum of Fine Arts, Santa Fe; Armory for the Arts, Harwood Foundation Museum; Albuquerque Museum, Roswell Museum. The problem is that none of those items have citations and the article is poorly written. Also problematic is the statement that she worked with Diego Rivera, the famous Mexican muralist. If she was born in 1955 and he died in 1957, did she work for him when she was 2 years old? Perhaps the editor meant she was influenced by him? The article creator is a student editor, which may be why the article sourcing is not very good. Netherzone (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete the coverage is extremely weak. She did some public murals in Santa Fe, and I see one book entry on Latin American artists, but that is it. Notability fail based on lack of sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment it seems that she was commissioned by the City of Albuquerque to do three permanent public artworks (mural frescos). I added one citation re: one of the works in this collection. She is notable in her vernacular arena and within the genre of Hispanic/Latinx muralists in the Southwest. The exhibitions are nothing to sniff at, these are significant museums that have shown her work. I will see what else I may be able to find, also if she has a married name or maiden name that is different. I think I'd like to develop this article. To my way of thinking, this article (and artist) requires some time because it may involve library research rather than web research. I'll be in New Mexico next month, and can volunteer to do this. The article has only been up for 6 weeks and was done by a student editor out in California (who perhaps did not have guidance in proper referencing - just a guess.) Netherzone (talk) 14:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I was just pointing out that available sourcing is extremely weak, as the nominator points out. The article is decently written and the issue is not so much proper referencing as it is the availability of our guiding principle: published sources. If you can find refs, more power to you. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * As admirable as your goal is, and as much as I would love to see this article be developed if possible, I don't believe "Well, it might be better a month later if I manage to find sources" should affect this nomination. If you can find better sources, more power to you, but I don't think the article should remain up in this state for a month or more in the hopes that you turn up something substantive in your digging. I would suggest that the article be removed, and if you come back with better sources that show this subject meets WP:BASIC or WP:ARTIST, there should be no problem reinstating the article with stronger sourcing and better prose. As it stands right now, this is an article with poor sourcing that may not even be entirely true (for example, as you pointed out, Vigil apparently worked with Rivera when she was two years old). The short essays WP:NOW and WP:REALPROBLEM broadly explain my sentiments.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  19:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi You are absolutely right, how absurd to assume the article could be draftified until I traveled to New Mexico. Instead, I've taken a proactive approach, went to the library, did online research, and called two museum libraries. As it now stands, the citation issues have been resolved, sourcing improved, resolved orphanhood, added categories, checked it for copy vio, and I've spent some time rectifying the horrific writing and removed what seemed like possible original research. The article passes WP:BASIC, WP:ARTIST, WP:GNG. She has works in permanent collections of the City of Albuquerque, has numerous public artworks, has had three solo museum exhibitions, one two-person museum show, and has had work included in eleven museum group shows. An entire chapter of the book, Latin American Women Artists of the United States The Works of 33 Twentieth-Century Women is on her work. Additionally she has authored a book published by Simon & Schuster that has been translated into two other languages. BTW, weak sourcing is not criteria for deletion. Netherzone (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Additionally she has authored a book published by Simon & Schuster that has been translated into two other languages" - NO, the article is totally clear she did the cover art for someone else's book. Careless nonsense doesn't help your case. The exhibition history & works in local museums are helpful to her but not really at big enough galleries to be clear evidence of notability. Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, you are incorrect, she did in fact author a book published by Simon and Schuster - there are citations in the article lead that point to these. Here they are again in case you don't have time to look at the article itself: Simon & Schuster here, Publishers weekly here, Spanish translation here, German translation here. As to the opinion that the galleries and museums who have shown and represented her work are not important enough, yes, it is correct she is a regional artist, although not entirely, she has indeed shown in all the major museums and best galleries in her geographic region, and is obviously notable when you look at the multiple instances of press coverage here. On the second aspect of your critique, just because an artist does not live in New York or London or Paris and show at Gagosian or WhiteBox or Pace Gallery does not mean they are unworthy of representation as a historically important person in the encyclopedia. Just sayin'... Netherzone (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, fair enough re the book. Johnbod (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Netherzone, I don't see why you felt the need to be snarky about this; I feel I was being reasonable and polite. You stated, "I'll be in New Mexico next month, and can volunteer to do this", meaning according to you at the time, the poorly sourced article would've been left unchanged on the mainspace for at least another month (note: you said nothing about draftifying) in the hopes that you would find something substantive. Moreover, I never remotely stated that weak sourcing alone is criteria for deletion, as though I've never read WP:NEXIST; I stated both that the current sourcing in the article was weak and that the rest of the sourcing we knew to be available was just as weak. As far as draftifying, my thought was that it would have been put on WP:HUD until you took your trip to New Mexico and gathered sources, i.e., the article would have been removed from the mainspace to be worked on as a draft (admittedly, I don't remember why I crossed out "draftify" in a previous revision; a draft space article would've worked just as well).
 * Finally, as far as notability is concerned, it seems more like a grey area than "clearly passing" notability guidelines; I will therefore defer to, as their expertise on Wikipedia seems to be about notable female artists; if they ultimately find that this subject passes notability guidelines and provide an explanation, I'll withdraw my nomination (note: not meant as an ultimatum; I just mean if they reach that conclusion at some point).  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  02:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think it's a good nomination, see my comments below. The murals were community works projects partially done by kids (this could be OK, see for example Suzanne Lacy, but these murals aren't cutting edge art like Lacy's is). The books, solo and group shows are mostly unreviewed, so here we are at AFD. Maybe Netherzone can find newspaper articles that establish GNG? We're all a bunch of well-intentioned editors doing what we are supposed to do at AFD: giving the subject a good examinaton. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello again, I'm perplexed with the characterization "snarky", as no snark was intended. In fact I  thanked you for lighting a fire under me to edit proactively online rather than waiting until I was in the local geographic area to do library research. I called myself out on the abusurdity of keeping this AfD open so long. That is being realistic, not snarky.  I no longer have access to newspapers.com, and given the dates of her activity, local library research made sense. New Mexico is the 50th poorest state and even major institutions such as the National Hispanic Cultural Center with thousands of works in their collections cannot afford to digitize them (they have only digitized SIX works from their massive collection). It takes many years and more importantly money to digitize a collection. Local and regional magazines and newspapers are either not digitized or poorly digitized. It's just social-economic reality. These conditions make library research even more essential. However, the point is moot now, because the article has been vastly improved and if you kindly take the time to look at it again with fresh eyes, I think you may agree that deleting it would erase an important Latina woman artist from the historical record, which to my way of thinking, is a diservice to the encyclopedia. I have found three important permanent collections, in additon to her shows at galleries and art centers, she has had three solo museum shows, one museum two-person show, and eleven museum group shows - all curated by intelligent, informed and well-educated museum professionals. Please have a look at it again now that it has been cleaned up and improved. I'm just wondering if you thought about WP:BEFORE since you deleted before adding the sources you did find, or attempting to improve it first. I say that in the spirit of inclusionism. Netherzone (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. The sarcasm came off as snark, mostly due to the "how absurd to assume"; I didn't realize you were addressing yourself. I did carry out WP:BEFORE. I think you're questioning whether or not I performed WP:BEFORE C.2 because of the article's somewhat recent creation, but that's left to the editor's discretion, the article in its nominated state was more akin to WP:REALPROBLEM than WP:INSPECTOR, I could find no sources through WP:BEFORE D that would make me assume the article could be readily improved, and 6 weeks should have been plenty of time to improve it (although it never should have gone to mainspace in the first place in that state). As far as keeping the article is concerned, I gave myself no further say in favor of deferring to 's judgement; as they changed their vote to Keep and explained their decision as WP:HEY, the nomination is withdrawn.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  19:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - Clearly passes WP:BASIC, WP:ARTIST, and WP:GNG. She has works in permanent collections of the City of Albuquerque, and has numerous public artworks. In addition to numerous shows in galleries, university galleries and art centers, she has had three solo museum exhibitions; one two-person museum show; and has had work included in eleven museum group shows. An entire chapter of the book, Latin American Women Artists of the United States: The Works of 33 Twentieth-Century Women is on her artwork. Additionally she has authored a book published by Simon & Schuster that has been translated into two other languages. -- Netherzone (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The museum collections might do it, were they actually in amuseum collection per the intention of WP:ARTIST. It is worth noting that the recent article about one of her murals being covered says "In 1995, Santa Fe artist Bernadette Vigil and five teenagers teamed up to paint a fresco on an exterior wall of City Hall under a program started by then-Mayor Debbie Jaramillo to produce public art as a positive way to counter the city’s graffiti problem." WP:Artist says artists are likely notable if their work is held in the permanent collections of multiple museums or notable galleries. That is a notability rule of thumb that works because those museums have curators who judge notability by carefully selecting works. In Vigil's case she was not selected by a curator to be in a permanent collection, but rather she was selected to lead a bunch of kids to paint some public murals (as detailed in the Project report here). It's essentially a public works project. Regarding the solo shows, they are of no value without reviews. Re: group shows, those are what artists do and are only important here with in-depth reviews. Same goes for the book: no reviews, no importance in notability. So the murals do not make her meet WP:ARTIST, and the books, group and solo shows have almost no reviews. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi I suppose that is one way to look at that specific commission: "lead a bunch of kids to paint some public murals"; the other way to look at it is that Vigil was commissioned (which is a selective, curatorial process) by the City of Santa Fe Art Commission (which is the equivalent of a state council on the arts) to create a mural for City Hall of the New Mexico State Capital city. Also wanted to point out that you were looking at an incorrect link for works in collections. I've moved that section up, BtW. Thank you for your comments, they have been instructive. Netherzone (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that the phrase I used is exactly correct: she was comissioned to "lead a bunch of kids to paint some public murals". It is very, very far from being selected for a permanent collection of a museum or notable gallery by a curator, which is the intention of WP:ARTIST 4. d). Muralists are all over the place, and the commissioning process is very low-level. WP:ARTIST relies on museum curators as they are high-level qualified personel who can do the bnotability judging for us. I think the level of care in the mural is process is exemplified by the fact that Vigil's mural got covered over in stucco one day by a contractor. It's a community beautification program and youth engagement project (Project title "Community Youth Mural Program") and not a highly trained curator selecting works that will be carefully preserved for centuries. We rely on WP:ARTIST 4d) because we can defer tot he judgement of those highly trained personnel; the same cannot be said for us relying on the whoever curated the mural project. The word curator does not even appear in the project report for the Community Youth Mural Program.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't see how the encyclopedia can be improved by deleting this article. We have citations to reliable sources. Her work has been curated in museum exhibits, so I'm happy to defer an evaluation of the merits of her work to the expertise of those curators. Vexations (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Changing to Keep per WP:HEY, based on Netherzone having found more museum collections. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The article as I am viewing it clearly meets GNG, and, in my view, NARTIST as well.  Montanabw (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Mild Keep The article, which could be improved as regards referencing and info - eg where are these public murals exactly? - just about squeaks through GNG and WP:ARTIST, though not as clearly as some keepers claim. Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Hi dozens of sources of full page, half page articles and reviews are on Newspapers.com. Once I get my WP library card renewed (or when I travel to New Mexico next month - these sources can be added as full citations. She is notable in her field and geographic arena.  Netherzone (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:HEY and per WP:NARTIST — I couldn't find the permanent collection information now in the article when I tried searching for it, so thanks to those who did. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2019 (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.