Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorothy Berry


 * 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. Article has been improved since nomination and just makes the threshold. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  10:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC).

Dorothy Berry

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable artist. Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. Note that exhibition catalogues are not independent and that the exhibition referenced was in-house. Author has conflict of interest. Flat Out (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep since I accepted because of the national museum collection. SwisterTwister   talk  08:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I can't see the collection to which you refer, the national gallery claim is not sourced. Would you mind clarifying, if I have missed something I'll withdraw  Flat Out (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * While I concur the author submitted a large number of artists, several of which apparently had no collections at all, I searched and this confirms she's collected by the national gallery. SwisterTwister   talk  00:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Very borderline wikipedia technical general notability but works being held by the NGA I suggest confirms notability. NGA holding meets WP:CREATIVE/WP:ARTIST. Editor COI is not grounds for deletion. Notability and verifiability of the article content is. And this content seems okay or fixable. Aoziwe (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment If the article makes the claim that work by an artist is in the collection of a national museum, and there are issues with verifying that claim, I would suggest a failed verification template and a discussion with the editor who made the claim, instead of an AfD nomination. But, like I said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brigid Hanrahan, I am concerned about the lack of critical reception. Even for artist who technically meet some of the secondary notability criteria of WP:ARTIST, for example being represented in a collection, we still need someone else to write something we can base an article on. I would really like to see some in-depth reviews from reliable, independent sources, and artshub is not an independent source. Mduvekot (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Looking at WP:ARTIST#4:
 * "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."
 * a) Nope. b) No evidence of being a substantial part of a significant exhibition. c) Nope. d)No evidence of being represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. NGA holding alone does not meet criteria. (more info on the Home Sweet Home NGA collection found here and here running 11 October 2003 – 18 January 2004)
 * Wikipedia is not a free webhost for the collection of artist bios for the Northcote-based studio at Arts Project Australia. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and develop or draftily . This is an example of an "outsider" artist - they are generally self taught, have what some consider "naive" aesthetics. Outsider artists operate outside of the "normal" power dynamics and systems of the commercial art market, the gallery and museum system. For more info on Outsider Art see here. Their outsider status does not diminish their importance, nor creativity, but does make them difficult to receive recognition. It takes time to research these types of individuals. I've done a bit of scoping around and there are other sources/references on this artist. To my mind, what is problematic is the way the article is written - it needs improvement and structure. I vote to keep it for now. Netherzone (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - you have voted keep but then below you note it doesn't meet encyclopedic standards. How does the subject meet Wp:GNG or WPNARTIST? Flat Out (talk) 10:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As per my comment above, I have begun to work on this article to improve it and hopefully bring it to encyclopedia standards. There is information out there on this artist, but one has to dig for it. I've worked on the format of the article, adding an info box, sections, copy editing, and citations. I will continue to do so as time permits. Please be patient. In my opinion, there is a need for more representation of artists with disabilities, and women artists. Dorothy Berry is notable in her field of Outsider Art. Netherzone (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Flat Out The artist meets WP:Artist in the following ways: She is regarded as an important figure in the field of Outsider Art (see references). The person created/played a major role in creating a significant collective body of work. Her work has been acquired for major collections at the National Gallery of Australia (Accession number: NGA 2002.431.466) and MADMusée, Liège, Belgium. Two of her lithographs, are held in the collection of the Centre for Australian Art. (please see citations) There has been a book published on her work. There have been four solo exhibits of her work, and it has been included in over 30 group exhibitions. Marginalized, vernacular outsider status should not subvert historical significance.Netherzone (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2017 (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.