Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carolyn Mary Kleefeld


 * 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. Marginal notability, but no consensus to delete (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Carolyn Mary Kleefeld

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable artist who fails WP:BIO, WP:RS, WP:CREATIVE, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:BK. The entry is purely promotional, written by her friend David Jay Brown, who also enjoys puffing himself up on his own article. The tag for WP:COI on Carolyn Mary Kleefeld has been hanging there for three and a half years without anybody doing anything about it. It's time to defend the integrity of Wikipedia and remove this WP:ADVERT. Qworty (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. A search for news articles brings up scads of brief mentions of upcoming events, but very, very little that I was actually able to add to the article. A more general search didn't show anything else to prove that she passes any of the various versions of notability. She's come closer than a lot of other authors that have been brought to AfD, but she falls just short of being so notable that she merits a Wikipedia article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Possible delete - Although, like Tokyogirl79 said, I found event listings but I also found this news article that mentions her husband (who is also an artist), this, this (1981 Los Angeles Times review) and this (she won a local competition but this wouldn't be sufficient for Wikipedia). After going through 10 pages of Google News archives results, it seems she is more known as a gallery artist rather than in-depth coverage suitable for Wikipedia, and it's not surprising because it seems she was more active in the 1970s-1980s. Google Books provided mainly results for her work but I found this, which provides a little information about her life. My own search provided a Monterey County Weekly article that, not only supports her British birth, but provides details such as her work being translated to Romanian. SwisterTwister   talk  20:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep According to WP:CREATIVE #4 "The person's works .. (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition.. or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." For (a): there was an exhibition at the Frederick R. Weisman Museum of Art, Califorinia, Pepperdine University in 2008. It resulted in a catalogue-book with commentary by museum curator and director, Michael Zakian, PhD. The Weisman Foundation, which funds the museum, owns works by Cezanne, Picasso, Warhol, Lichtenstein, and Kandinsky and others, loaning these works out to other museums; thus I'm considering it a notable/major museum and gallery in the art world. One of the pieces, "Zen Face", was gifted to the Weisman museum by collector Ken Czachor for its permanent collection, though it is not "several notable museums" for point (d) above unless someone can find additional "notable museums" with works in permanent collection. But it does pass on point (b) if you agree the Weisman counts as a "significant" exhibition. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to Pepperdine University, I don't believe that a gallery exhibition at a college is sufficiently notable to make the artist notable. Qworty (talk) 00:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a University not a college. The gallery is part of a museum that contains major works of art on loan from the Weisman Foundation which funds the museum and has also funded the New Orleans Museum of Art the San Diego Museum of Art. There is no inherent problem if a museum is located in a University, there are important museums and art galleries in Universities, just as there are important research labs in the sciences. Universities are important centers of the arts and sciences. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Almost all of them have galleries.  So how "significant" can it be?  The guideline calls for "significant exhibitions." Qworty (talk) 06:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The Weisman Foundation also has galleries in New Orleans Museum of Art the San Diego Museum of Art, and they own an important art collection. It's significant for an artist to have an exhibition at a Weisman Foundation gallery. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The other, more prominent galleries where she has not shown are irrelevant, per WP:NOTINHERITED. Qworty (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is to demonstrate a Weisman gallery is significant in the art world. It would be strange to say Weisman has 5 galleries and some are significant and others not. So you look at the organization as a whole: is Weisman significant in the art world? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's illogical to argue that everything they do is "significant" simply because they are Weisman. Like any entity, they are wholly capable of doing things that are both "significant" and "insignificant."  And what has been done with this artist is clearly insignificant. Qworty (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Where an artist holds an exhibition is a primary factor in determining how significant the exhibition is. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - at what point does a hot mess means that we delete an articles whose subject is otherwise marginally notable? Bearian (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2012 (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.