Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly O


 * 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 moved to draft space. While consensus is against keeping the article at this time, I note the improvement that it's experienced over the course of this discussion. Moving this to draft space will allow the author and other editors to further demonstrate notability. And if it goes stale, a trip to WP:MFD will be in order. --BDD (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Kelly O

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable "street photographer" lacking non-trivial coverage. References are mostly examples of subject's work. No non-trivial coverage. Fails WP:BIO. red dog six (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Her work is not trivial—Kelly O has been documenting contemporary life in Seattle for 15 years, publishing hundreds of portraits in the weekly newspaper. This prolific body of work captures what regular people look like and how they behave, which will certainly be a valuable resource for future researchers looking for photos of typical Seattle residents from 1998 to the present. Her work should be seen on par with photographers such as Michael Lavine, who documented the Seattle grunge scene in the late eighties and early nineties. Sarahmirk (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. The articles are by her, not about her. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment, Reddogsix was not intending to make a personal assessment. On Wikipedia, people say work is trivial if the source mentions the person but is not about the person. The It Gets Better piece is "trivial" for example, because it is about the It Gets Better Project and only mentions Kelly O as a photo credit. An article interviewing Kelly O about her directorial experience making the film or a presentation of her views of the project, for example, would be non-trivial. For the article to be kept it is supposed to have some sources - probably two - in which someone writes about Kelly O herself. The Stranger drunk article seems like one of those, because it is a feature written about her and her art show. It is a bit questionable because it is published by the paper employing her, but if there were other good sources, I think this would contribute to proof of notability. Perhaps it counts as half of a source. The Bold Italic Piece is written by Kelly O herself, so that one is out, and while the Seattle PI piece is published by a major newspaper, it says that it is a press release so presumably it too is her own promotional material which she created for herself. On her Italic profile it says that she "helped Dan Savage start the "It Gets Better Project," which recently won an Emmy Award", but since this is her self-authored profile that is not a source. However, if you had another source which acknowledged that she was a key contributor to that project and that she has some credit in getting the award, then I think that would establish her as notable. What do you think are your best sources here? Do you think that this person can meet these kinds of criteria? Thanks.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   22:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for your comments, all. I am looking for additional sources now that show her significance. In the meantime, here's a question: Shouldn't gallery shows be proof the significance of an artist? In Kelly O's case, two gallery curators have seen her work as significant enough to grant her solo shows. —Sarahmirk (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Gallery shows are not proof. Reviews of gallery shows are, when they are not written by the artist, published by the artist's employer, or written by the gallery in which the show is hosted. If you have reviews of her shows by a journalist working for another publication then yes, presenting those would probably establish notability under the general notability guidelines. The idea is to check to see if anyone wrote about her without having a personal or financial interest in promoting her.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   12:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete—I’m trying to understand the notability criteria better, but this article seems to me to cite almost exclusively the person’s own work, which does not qualify as a secondary source. --Vindeniträden (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete As an uncredentialed photographer and bar scene blurb writer for an alt weekly with no reliable third party sources making assertions of notability she fails all relevant notability guidelines. GraniteSand (talk) 05:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete unremarkable street snapper, no evidence of significant independent sources. 94.194.24.46 (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Hello all. I fleshed out this entry with a couple more significant gallery shows, a portrait she took that was featured in national media, and a Portland newspaper's story about her retrospective gallery show in 2010. I think this latter source speaks well to her significance as a rare and distinctive Pacific Northwest contemporary street photographer. Sarahmirk (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure that you really understand the notability guidelines for biographical articles so I'd suggest reading them. It's clear that your think O'Neil does cool work. It's clear she had her photos shown in galleries. It's clear that she's known in her little corner of the Seattle photog world and, through her time at The Stranger, rubs elbows with some people who are notable. It's also clear that some of her pictures have received dissemination outside her immediate media market. What none of these things establish is that she meets our notability guideline; there are literally tens of thousands of photographers who essentially meet the same criteria. An early indicator of a problem is the references section, it's packed with second rate sources that don't meet the litmus on reliable sources, especially for a biographical article of a living person, one of the more stringent criteria we have. As someone who seems to follow her work I'd say just keep an eye out and bear in mind that a lack of notability can be transient and that anytime in the future, when she receives substantial third party coverage asserting her notability or receives an inherently notable award for her work, then you can revisit this. GraniteSand (talk) 07:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What GraniteSand says seems in aligned with Wikipedia practice. The Portland State Vanguard source does seem good to me because it is about Kelly O, in a good newspaper, and not written by her affiliates - that makes one source. The Ladies' Choice gallery mention is both trivial because it is not about Kelly O and just a mention, and it is an advertisement for the gallery. The Mohave source does not mention Kelly O at all. The Jodi Jaecks breast cancer articles are about Jodi Jaecks, and only give a photo credit to Kelly O, so are not about Kelly O at all. Wikipedia guidelines say that to be in Wikipedia, multiple sources have to cover the subject of any article. Right now I count 1-2 weak sources covering this person. Also, information not backed by good sources has to be deleted. Just 1-2 sentences in this article are coming from the good sources. Any more sources?  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   11:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spelling out the requirements, GraniteSand and Bluerasberry, I appreciate your time and help. I feel like someone's body of published work should count in some way toward their notability—not just what people have written about them, but what they've made themselves. However, I understand that's not in the notability guidelines and I can why: artists aren't significant just because they're prolific. But that requirement makes it hard to add people to Wikipedia who haven't sought attention or awards, who have just been doing their art and flying below the media radar. /philosophical tangent. I will dig around for a second solid source akin to the Vanguard article. Sarahmirk (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There's WP:CREATIVE, which gives a few guidelines on the notability of creative professionals. Maybe one of those conditions applies? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment, presumably this was written as part of the Women Artists Editathon last week. There's a lot of work gone into it and some of the comments above are a bit harsh. I'm surprised a photographer who produced a gallery of 100 testicles hasn't had more coverage! One more meaty news source that isn't from The Stranger would convince me to recommend a !Keep. The Portland State Vanguard describes her as having "made a name for herself" and "famous" for her newspaper column. Maybe the article can be moved to the author's sandbox, to allow more time to find sources? Sionk (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, this was written in the Art and Feminism event. The comments above are typical for Wikipedia and while blunt and accurate, they are also discouraging to new users. I assure you that everyone who commented cares a lot and is expressing gratitude in their own way according to the culture here; after all, they are volunteering their time to review this and are on hand to help. Moving to the sandbox was a recommended option until a few weeks ago per Userfication. Now there is a new procedure described at Drafts. Support move of this to Drafts. The advantage of putting this in a draft is that if someone in the future tries to recreate the article, they will find this draft. People using search engines will not otherwise see this article. Whoever closes this can simply move this to the draft mainspace. I agree that with another good reference and removal of unacceptable references that this article could remain.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   14:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think putting this in the draft space is the right move for now, Sionk and Bluerasberry. I agree that it technically does not meet the notability requirements. I have tracked down another review of the artist's work, but it's in a defunct art magazine of which there is no online archive. :/ However, I'd like to be able to revive the entry in the future when Kelly O gets more press and can meet the notability requirements. Thanks for your help and patience on this. Sarahmirk (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2014 (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.