Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katherine Porter


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Katherine Porter

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not pass the general notability guideline as there is not significant, independent coverage. The references now in the article do not appear to be independent, and I was unable to find anything other than mentions in my search. Searching is confounded by the fact that this is a common name. In particular, hits for Katherine Anne Porter may create the illusion of notability but they are not the same individual. The article itself lacks substance. Arguably passes WP:ARTIST based on the inclusion of some works within several major collections but I believe that the GNG should govern.  Uninvited Company 18:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The subject definitely passes WP:ARTIST #4(d) "The person's work (or works) has: ... (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." This is easily verifiable by searching the collections of the museums listed in the article. The nominator appears to think that this is not enough, but Notability states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: (1) It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right," ie explicitly stating that it meets EITHER the WP:GNG OR WP:SNG. Someone whose works of art are in at least 6 major museums would probably also meet other criteria of WP:ARTIST, and perhaps also the WP:GNG, if one were to search newspapers, art journals, etc. Such sources could be added to the article, but as the article makes a clear, easily verified claim of notability, it should definitely be kept. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, easily meets (nominator must be joking that Porter "arguably meets") WP:NARTIST, works held at:
 * Museum of Modern Art - "I am an American... Uneasy Dreams", "The City Fell Away", and "Untitled" (as part of The Atelier Project),
 * Metropolitan Museum of Art - "Untitled, Number 8", "New York Number",
 * Museum of Fine Arts, Houston - 21 works!,
 * Worcester Art Museum - "Untitled", "...Armed with a Burning Patience...For A.I. (Amnesty International)", and "A Poet's Cloud",
 * San Francisco Museum of Modern Art - "Untitled",
 * Detroit Institute of Arts - "Remembering the Nights",
 * Colby College Museum of Art - 9 works (most donated by artist),
 * Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco - 7 works,
 * University Art Museum at University at Albany - "Untitled" (Artelier Project),
 * Van Abbemuseum - "Untitled", and
 * North Carolina Museum of Art - "Five Tornadoes and Full Moon";
 * exhibited at:
 * Herbert F. Johnson Museum of Art - "Instruments of Torture" (appears in Cornell Collects,
 * Rose Art Museum - "Katherine Porter: Paintings 1969‐1984" (Past Exhibitions: 1985),
 * Hudson River Museum - Six Painters (pages 42 to 47 of exhibition catalogue, lists lots more exhibitions that can be researched);
 * written about by John Russell in The New York Times ("Art: Juicy Abstractions By Katherine Porter").
 * ps. searching is not "confounded by common name", just gsearch "Katherine Porter artist collections" then ditto "exhibitions". pps. i haven't bothered with all the galleries/museums listed in the article (another straight forward search either the gallery/museum own website or gsearch "(museum/gallery name) katherine porter") as i reckon the above is enough. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets the GNG in addition to easily passing WP:ARTIST. Here are three reviews from Artforum: https://www.artforum.com/print/reviews/198009/katherine-porter-66819, https://www.artforum.com/print/reviews/197906/katherine-porter-67742 and https://www.artforum.com/print/reviews/198105/katherine-porter-66354 by Hal Foster, Peter Schjeldahl and Thomas_Lawson ARTnews has a two page review, unfortunately not available online: Staniszewski, Mary Anne. ARTnews. Dec80, Vol. 79 Issue 10, p192-193  Vexations (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep on this bad faith nomination from someone who should know better. your nomination itself shows you know that WP:ARTIST does not require WP:GNG (even though she also meets GNG). If you want to challenge that, take it to the N Talk pages. You have been editing since 2003, and have several hundred !votes at AFD with 76% with consensus. You know better. Sorry to be direct, but I want to very CIVILy ask you to not waste our time here. --Theredproject (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I just realized you are a Bureaucrat. Which makes this even more confounding. I'm not trying to poke a bear, but are you trying to make a WP:POINT about GNG > ARTIST? Or is this just a poorly researched, poorly judged nom? --Theredproject (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per multiple reviews posted above (NY Times, ArtForum, etc.), holdings in multiple significant art museums, as well as entries in North American Women Artists of the Twentieth Century: A Biographical Dictionary, and Who's Who in American Art. These suggest enough published secondary sources exist, beyond the ones listed above, to make a neutral, encyclopedic article, even if short, and thus the assumption of WP:GNG is warranted (there are likely other print reviews that aren't instantly Googleable). While the article currently reads rather promotional and subjective, Articles for Deletion is not Articles for Improvement, and articles shouldn't be tagged for deletion merely because the current version is sub-optimal (WP:ATD). Note: the artist's full name appears to be Katharine Pavlis Porter, as named in several editions of Who's Who in American Art, the cover of Noon Knives (2002), the 1963 Colorado College commencement program, and as suggested in the contact email at http://katherineporter.net/contact. Some websites and databases give the name "Katharine Page Porter", e.g. Skinner Auctions and even the Getty Union List of Artist Names. However, I beleive this is an error: the only credible art-related "Katharine Page Porter" appears to be a friend of Angna Enters who was an elementary art supervisor in Beverly Hills in the 1940s.,. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep time-wasting nomination. In multiple museum collections, passes WP:ARTIST. And the nominator admits as much: "Arguably passes WP:ARTIST". Why waste everyone's time if that is the case?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:18, 26 March 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.