Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurie Langford


 * 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 delete. North America1000 08:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Laurie Langford

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable artist who fails WP:CREATIVE as they have only exhibited in local art exhibitions. The claim that she was the subject of book (or of a chapter in said book) published by Oxford University Press seems to be a hoax as the given chapter title does not appear in the table of contents for the book, and seems to have been published in 2012 as a review, when the only edition of the book was published in 2006. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The article claims an exhibition at the Contemporary Art Institute of Detroit which is not local, but does not give a reference for it. Regarding the book, according to worldcat there was a 2010 edition here but this also does not have the chapter, so I agree that it does seem misleading. Reserving judgement in case it can be explained. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Chatham-Kent is only an hour's drive away from Detroit, so that is local. A Google search for the Detroit exhibition gives nothing except self-published sources, which in this day and age probably means it was not important. Page 32 of this arts magazine mentions the Grand Rapids (still only two hours away from Chatham-Kent) joint exhibition but only in passing, the only other non-self published work on that is a local art student's blog. Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

*Keep Having started working on this article since July 3 of this year I say the article should be retained due to the sources in the article which include a couple books and a magazine, among others. The number of references is currently seven for whatever that is worth. The article subject passes WP:GNG and has crossed the threshold of notability. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 03:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC) Banned sock. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've spent some time in Chatham. Small town! (Any central Canadian knows that the most important points about Chatham are a) the corn price on CBC and b) do not drive too close when following a truck full of tomatoes.) Re:notability, I'll bet just about anyone who can move a brush reasonably well could get a show at the Chatham-Kent Cultural centre, or whatever it's called. Detroit is indeed local. As to sources, there's apparently one good ref in a "Buj" essay. However Google images returns nothing of her work (my informal test for notability). News, Book and web sources come back with basically nothing. I think any notability here is the result of a promotional effort. I trimmed of a gigantic section of unsourced material on her upbringing. Article clearly fails to meet WP:ARTIST.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The reference count is actually four, one of which seems to a local art review falsely presented as a chapter in a book by the Oxford Universty Press, another is just a local arts review that can only be found on pages maintained by the artist in question, one is a book that has a paragraph on a great-great grandfather of the artist, and then a self-published source by the artist. Hardly the stuff to pass WP:GNG. Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete The references to Buj contributions in Grime's book can't be verified, and likely do not exists. The MacDonald reference is irrelevant, the Barbed ref is a contribution by Langford. Fails WP:ARTIST Mduvekot (talk) 12:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not at all sure if the Buj article is in the Oxford publication, but it does seem to have been initially published as a gallery essay. This doesn't change the non-notability fo the artist, but it's interesting. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep: The "local" argument doesn't cut it with me, as if there is coverage across the border in Michigan, that is more than simply "regional" no matter how close in geographic proximity -- and the crack about the price of corn smacks of a bias against anything that isn't a major metro area, which demolishes the credibility of the !vote and argument to me.  The accomplishments of this artist are on the line, but given that there is room to improve referencing and content, I say give the editors working on it a chance to improve the quality.   Montanabw (talk)  17:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as still nothing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister   talk  05:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as the subject meets neither GNG nor CREATIVE. The Barbed article (the one published in Detroit) shows some of her art along with an artist's statement, which does not establish notability. The art exhibitions are small and local. Note that Detroit is local to Chatham; Detroit and Windsor are across the border from each other (like San Diego and Tijuana) and Chatham is close to Windsor. The Buj essay is interesting but Buj is a professor of English literature, not art, and so the essay cannot be used to establish notability under CREATIVE. There's just a dearth of significant, independent coverage of her. Ca2james (talk) 00:34, 11 July 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.