Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Fay


 * 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. With a definite "keep" slant, putting a consensus for deletion out of reach, even if some "keep" opinions appear rather perfunctory.  Sandstein  19:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Holly Fay

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of an artist, based entirely on primary sources with no evidence shown of the reliable source coverage it takes to pass WP:CREATIVE. As always, Wikipedia is not a place where any artist is entitled to an article just because she exists -- but this is basically just a résumé, sourced entirely to directly affiliated organizations rather than media coverage, and is neither substantive enough nor sourced enough to make her suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  21:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  21:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep. This independent source from a highly respectable authority testifies to the subject's notability.--Ipigott (talk) 07:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Canadian Artists Representation is not an independent source or a highly respectable authority — it's a public relations organization for artists of which she's a board member, and thus is a directly affiliated primary source. Bearcat (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * She is not listed as a board member here.--Ipigott (talk) 08:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A direct quote from the article you claimed as an independent source in the original comment: "As a member of the board of CARFAC Saskatchewan, [Fay] played a key role on the CARFAC SASK Mentorship Program Development Committee." She may not be a member of the organization's national board, but she is a member of one of its regional chapter boards. Bearcat (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, not. She is not mentioned as board member here . Regards. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See the quote I pulled out at you again. Whether she is currently a board member, or isn't now but has been in the past, is a moot point — either way, it's still an organization with which she's directly affiliated, not an independent third party. Bearcat (talk) 03:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, this is the same you can say about Academy of Motion Pictures and Nobel Committees. They are organisation, in which motion pictures professionals and academics are members and thus choose between themselves. Why do you decline the same rights for artists? As Ipigott wrote she is not board member, so there is no conflict of interests. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not all motion picture professionals are automatically members of the Academy, and not all scientists/academics are automatically members of the Nobel committee — both of those prizes are judged by members of those organizations, but can be (and more often than not are) presented to people who are not. And at any rate, the notability or non-notability of an award is not judged by the composition of the judging board or the composition of the nominees' pool, but by the degree to which the media do or don't treat that award as newsworthy — both the Academy Awards and the Nobel Prize are things that the media extensively cover as news stories. But the only source shown for this award is a press release on the awarding organization's own website rather than a news article — which means that it hasn't been demonstrated as an award that can make its winners notable for winning it, because news coverage of it, in media independent of itself, has not been shown. Bearcat (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree with Ipigott, that this makes her passing WP:CREATIVE. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've just also looked at google and added some exhibitions of her, held in public galleries. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * An artist's exhibitions in galleries do not get them over WP:CREATIVE if the sourcing for those exhibitions is the primary source webpages of the galleries where the exhibitions were held — it requires third party media coverage writing about those exhibitions. Bearcat (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello Bearcat. Definitely not, but as I said about what get her to pass WP:CREATIVE is . Specifically, it's "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.". She was not just mentioned there. We won an awards. The exhibition links are just pointing to the fact she exhibits in public galleries, which is supportive fact. Regards. Arthistorian1977 (talk)
 * The award she won is one that's presented by CANFAR to one of its own members, and sourced only to CANFAR's own press release about it on CANFAR's own website, rather than to any reliable sourcing which demonstrates that it's an award which the media consider newsworthy. Which means it's an award that we could mention in an article that had already satisfied WP:CREATIVE in other ways — but it's not an award that can give her a CREATIVE pass in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I cannot imagine simply having your work exhibited in any public gallery is a sufficient sign that a person is "an important figure." That would mean pretty much any student artist would qualify. Clearly the standard is higher than that. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per and  Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete that CARFAC promo article is definitely not enough to establish notability, in my opinion. CARFAC is an advocacy group, not an independent third party source. If that's the only article that covers her, I cannot see how she can meet the notability guidelines. I personally cannot find any reliable coverage of her, and it doesn't look like anyone else here has either, so far. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep More citations have been added as well as examples of her work.--Chittah (talk) 01:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * While technically it's true that more "citations" have been added, they're all still primary and/or directory sources — there still hasn't been a single reliable source, of the type that can actually support encyclopedic notability because it represents substantive coverage about her in media, added at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Saskatchewan NAC and ArtSask are secondary sources - one sponsored by the Ministry of Education and Heritage Canada, the other an organization with a mandate to provide access to biographical information about artists in the province for educational purposes.--Chittah (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Saskatchewan NAC and ArtSask are both membership organizations to which artists submit their own self-written biographical profiles to the member directories. They do not represent third party coverage about her in media. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Art Sask provides information for educational purposes - it's not posted verbatim from the artist - they have editors who review the content as it's intended for research in schools. The video interviews are obviously primary sources, but those haven't been cited here. what about the media sources? Leader-Post, Galleries West, etc. --Chittah (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to look at Regina Leader-Post sourcing, if there were any in the article to look at.... Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 18 March 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.