Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheryl Ruddock


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Rather than a third relist, I'm closing this as No consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 06:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Cheryl Ruddock

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. WP:BEFORE does not call up any RS for this artist. I am not finding any sources for claims of being in collections. The article, as currently written, has 4 dead links. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Canada.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  05:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Fails WP:NARTIST. 84.146.2.66 (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be helpful at this point to get some feedback about article improvements that have been made since its nomination. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:ARTIST, dead links not necessarily a problem, but all refs seem to be local news/gallery. No evidence of widespread/national level exhibition or recognition. Hemmers (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:BASIC, if not the artist-specific criteria. Have added multiple sources to the article, including this review in a local Ontario newspaper. Her reputation really is as one of the top artists from Guelph, but at least her work is also acknowledged in publications in other parts of Ontario. If this article is not kept, I would suggest a merge and redirect with her husband Nicholas Ruddock's bio, even though their careers are in completely different spheres of work; they have been married for nearly 50 years and there is a lot of coverage about that as well since he likes to talk about it. (It would seem like a more natural fit to combine their bios, if they were both artists or both novelists. For this reason as well, I think it makes more sense to keep her article separate.) Regarding the collections holding her work, there is plenty of secondary coverage accessible via ProQuest that verifies this one by one; it would just take some time to add it back to the article. I came across many snippets of critics assessing/commenting on her work as well in newspapers from the mid-1980s through to her more recent exhibitions, which could be added to the section on "Reception". Cielquiparle (talk) 06:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete: Sources are too local, I don't think she's at notability for artists. She doesn't seem to have gathered much attention from the national press in Canada. Guelph is a lower mid sized city in Ontario, so she has some local notability, but it's not Ottawa or Toronto. I don't see her works having been displayed at the Art Gallery of Ontario in Toronto, the McMaster in Hamilton or any of the national Galleries in Ottawa. I suspect she might not be notable (for our purposes) until after she passes away and the wider art community takes notice.  Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: She's in the permanent collection of the Kitchener Waterloo Art Gallery, a regional museum. Does that add to notability? I'm somewhat out of my wheelhouse on this one. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think that meets presumed criteria under WP:NARTIST. Criterion 4d would suggest it is necessary to be part of the permanent collection of several notable galleries. Is Kitchener Waterloo Art Gallery notable? It has no page and is regional, but even if we grant that it is, this is just one collection. We need several. I think we should be looking at BASIC and ANYBIO. Cielquiparle asserts they meet BASIC, citing one review. The review is occasioned by an exhibition at Glenhyrst Art Gallery. I do not see how that rises above a primary source, tbh. She is an artist, she has an exhibition, and someone writes about the exhibition - which is reporting. Any artist with an exhibition will get that much.
 * Put another way, if all we had was that article, what could we really say about the artist? What is an article built on?
 * I haven't entered a !vote here because I have not satisfied myself that no secondary sources can be found, but I don't see any that have been presented to date. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * A review is not a primary source. A gallery announcing an exhibit is a primary source, but a review is secondary by definition, if it is in fact independent. Anyway there are more sources in the article. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The art is the primary source and the review of the art is indeed secondary by definition. But as with all sources, whether a source is primary or secondary often depends on the question being asked. It is secondary for the art, but reporting of an artist's exhibition is primary for the artist. If it goes beyond reporting then it may be secondary for the artist too. But as I said, Put another way, if all we had was that article, what could we really say about the artist? What is an article built on? That is the real question. I'll take a look at the other sources in the article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep Being represented in the Canada Council Art Bank (confirmed) has some heft, and along with the other collections, I believe she passes WP:NARTIST. Curiocurio (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment - I said I would look at the other references in the article. Quite a lot of them are dead. There are a few that contain information that could be used to write about her, such as, but these write ups used in exhibitions tend to be written by the artist themself. As such they are inot independent. I looked at her CV and this largely confirms Oaktree b's comments. However, per Curiocurio, the public collections at the end does mention Canada Council Art Bank among others. I am leaning delete, but would sway to keep if I believed NARTIST criterion 4 was met: I think the Canada Council Art Bank is definitely one, but we need several. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * She is in several. I don't see what the problem is with the Art Gallery of Hamilton, as Hamilton is not a small city. I also confirmed the Kitchener-Waterloo Art Gallery and Glenhyrst in Brant. The University of Guelph site is under construction so couldn't be confirmed. Curiocurio (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also she has her own entry in the Dictionary of Canadian Artists which could technically be interpreted as satisfying WP:ANYBIO #3 (broadly construed). Cielquiparle (talk) 06:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * From my reading of it, I believe the Canadian equivalent would be Dictionary of Canadian Biography. Nothing lesser if the source is to be used to establish presumptive notability. Graywalls (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - It is borderline, but I am out of my expertise here, and so I think I should give the benefit of the doubt to keeping the article. There does, on the face of it, appear to be reason to believe she is more than just regionally notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:06, 27 March 2024 (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.