Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristin Congdon


 * 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. This looks like a classic case of WP:HEY. The article has been improved significantly during the AfD discussion. Consequently, the issue which userfication would rectify has been addressed anyway. Fairly clear consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  02:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Kristin Congdon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

DeProded. Not sure I understand the edit summary, but subject doesn’t appear notabile. MensanDeltiologist (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment The edit summary I provided when I dePRODed the articlew was "dePROD, not much in google news but Gale looks like it has several scholarly sources" I was referring to Gale Mduvekot (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining. I was looking for someone named Gale in the article and when I didn’t see it, I couldn’t understand.  Ms. Congdon May be notable but my opinion has always been I don’t care what the sources say; I care about the article says.   The whole point of an encyclopedia is to give you, at a minimum, an overview of the subject at hand.  And as an academic issue, it’s one thing for someone to say “oh, that’s cool, I wan to learn more about that” based on what they read in a wiki article.  And I do hope the articles inspire people to do that.  But not only does a one or two sentence article that simply says John teaches History at XYZ University not inspire the average person to follow up, the fact that John is a history professor in and of itself does not make him notable.  So, I believe the onus is on you, as the person who deprodded the article, to say more than there are sources.  Provide at least one or two sentences based on what you find in the database.  You obviously took the time to look her up.   Share what you learned, no matter how brief.   If it was shared, I would not have nominated!  Now, it’s 5 am and I am in the hospital.  Time to go back to bed.MensanDeltiologist (talk) 09:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * MensanDeltiologist please review WP:BEFORE before you nominate any more AfDs, as it covers why you need to do the research first. And I recommend you consider withdrawing the nomination, and/or accepting 's suggestion of Userfy'ing, given WP:BEFORE. --Theredproject (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "my opinion has always been I don’t care what the sources say; I care about the article says." is 100% not the policy here. We check for existing sources before discussing deletion, always. Please read WP:BEFORE.104.163.147.121 (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Userfy. After I dePRODed the article, I wanted to move it to draft namepace so that the creator would be able to work on it, but was too late; it has already been brought to AfD. In it's  current state the article is unsuitable for inclusion, but there is potential, and perhaps with some suggestions from helpful editors it can be made into a decent article. There are many good suggestions on the user's talk page, and I would be willing to provide further guidance if needed/desirable. Mduvekot (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete a search does not turn up enough in term so sourcing to justify keeping it. She has written a few books and there are many routine mentions and reprints of her biography, however there is zero independent in-depth coverage.104.163.147.121 (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment it appears that she has won several awards from national scholarly organizations, per "Congdon is the 1988 and 1999 recipient of the Manual Barkan Memorial Award for scholarship from the National Art Education Association and the 1998 Ziegfeld Award from the United States Society for Education Through Art for international work in the arts." There is also more here to begin work from  Theredproject (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Very notable artist, writer, and academic. I have greatly improved her article. She has an entry on Encyclopedia.com. She's contributed to several books, one of which was reviewed by the Washington Post several which have been reviewed (in at least 10 different sources and added to the article by ReaderofthePack). She has gone on tour with her art, displaying it in several museums including the St. Petersburg Museum of History. She's received several awards for her teaching ability and research. Her work has been mentioned in newspapers. Passes WP:ANYBIO for "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" and "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Passes WP:ARTIST for the person's work "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition" and "has won significant critical attention." Passes WP:ACADEMIC for "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level" and "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" as she's received awards for her teaching abilities and research into folklore. Lonehexagon (talk) 05:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The "Manual Barkan Memorial Award for scholarship" is well-known? Thanks for this informative tidbit.104.163.147.121 (talk) 08:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was given by the National Art Education Association. There are other awards listed in her article. Additionally, I listed several indications she is notable, and that was just one of many pieces of evidence. Lonehexagon (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but "well known" means that something is known well by a large number of people. The "Manual Barkan Memorial Award for scholarship" is basically the deifnition of an award that very few people have ever heard of. The newspaper link you provide is also OCR scrambles, so who knows what it says. There is no evidence that she has "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Such recognition, by definition, would have to be "widely recognized" in published sources, which is what is missing here. The encylopedia.com bio is good, but one would have to assume, given the detail, that it is just a republished bio. How on earth do they know that she is an independent voter? My point overall is that the small awards and honours she has had are routine for a routine non-notable academic. Please provide actual concrete sources if you disagree.104.163.147.121 (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I feel like you are ignoring everything else I said in my initial comment. There are many pieces of evidence I've presented that demonstrate she is notable in addition to what you're discussing. She has traveled with her art and had it shown in major museums. That alone would qualify her. Her books have received national attention. That also would qualify her. She has received significant discussion in secondary sources, which would satisfy WP:GNG by itself. Lonehexagon (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , I've added reviews for some of the works she's edited or contributed to - I think that she would pass CREATIVE now, for having a notable body of work (10 of the sources are reviews of her books), but I'm going to abstain from arguing for or against deletion because I oversaw the student who created the article. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡)  14:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, meant to ping ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡)  14:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep : Clearly passes WP:ACADEMIC.  National Art Education Association award; extensive publications with lots of reviews, established and leads program.  Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep : While initially wanted to Userfy, editors have improved the article significantly since that moment. I agree with  that the WP:RS that have been added indicate she meets WP:ACADEMIC.  I also not that the nom admitted they did not follow WP:BEFORE and have declined to withdraw the nom. In fact, they have seemed to have left the discussion. Theredproject (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:ACADEMIC and needs to be kept. Z359q (talk) 08:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Weakish Keep, I don't think that the sources provided by Lonehexagon are as strong as they say they are, but they're probably just enough to pass this past WP:GNG. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:17, 2 April 2018 (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.