Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorna Brown


 * 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. Consensus is that the article now meets the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Lorna Brown

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about artist which does not seem to meet WP:Artist or WP:GNG, Despite finding one source on her at. The sources in the article are primary sources or listings and do nothing to establish notability. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - After a quick search, I'm not seeing any coverage. NickCT (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This one is difficult as the name is difficult to google (too common) and there appears to be more than one artist named Lorna Brown. I can't find a cv for her that may list 3rd-party coverage which would help to establish notability. She's written some things, such as this but that doesn't help with notability.  freshacconci  talk to me  19:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I left a note with the article creator and mentioned userfying as an option. Awaiting a response. --Drm310 (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Question Does this indicate that the national Gallery owns some of her work? E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the work, so I would say yes. --Drm310 (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I see a National Gallery acquisition as a kind of certificate of notability for an artist, although I do not know if this is a WP standard. (It could/probably should be), But there are plenty of gallery shows and sources for an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sourcing here  a recent news article . review of 2014 exhibit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's one source I could find and listed in my nomination.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm the creator of this article. I'm new to Wikipedia and created it as part of the Art+Feminist Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon over the weekend. We had a couple of experienced editors looking over our pages but it seems that I have more work to do on this article. I do know of additional secondary sources to substantiate notability and would like to take some time over the next couple of days to add these citations. It is possible to have the article moved into my userspace while I complete these citations? Not sure how to go about this? Thank you to Drm310 for your advice. MainStreetStudio (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt the article would meet notability requirements if we can add some sources. She's exhibited at Centre International D'art Contemporain de Montreal, Canadian Museum of Contemporary Photography and McMaster Museum of Art, which is significant. If other sources are available, they could be listed on the article talk page in bibliographic style and can be used in the article. Since deletion discussions last 7 days, I doubt userfying will be necessary as the main issue is sources (as opposed to a completely unusable article).  freshacconci  talk to me  13:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am trusting that User:MainStreetStudio will continue to revise this into a good, well-sourced article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the primary concern was sourcing to prove notability.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - re "It is possible to have the article moved into my userspace while I complete these citations?" - I think you could save a copy to your user space, then just let the article be deleted. We can delete the article here with no prejudice against re-creation! Be sure to reach out if you need help working on the article. NickCT (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no rush -- still 6 days left. There's plenty of time to add sources and then the article will be fine.  freshacconci  talk to me  16:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * True. But the deletion discussion has already started. People already weighed in based on what they saw when the discussion started. No harm in just deleting then recreating from user space. NickCT (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess I don't understand what you're saying. No one's !vote is fixed: people change their minds during the process. If the article is improved during the next 6 days, and all it needs is some sources, then it's reasonable to assume an administrator will decide to keep the article, and if there's no consensus, it defaults to keep. If you're suggesting closing the discussion early, that usually doesn't happen unless it's a snowball keep or delete, which this isn't. I haven't !voted yet but I am leaning to keep based on her exhibition record. If we can find some decent sources, I'd !vote keep.  freshacconci  talk to me  17:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * re " people change their minds during the process." - True true. But only if those people keep their eye on the process. 6 days from now, I might not think this is a "delete" any longer, but I might fail to change my opinion on this page. An admin might look at consensus and figure it was still for delete.
 * Regardless, whether it's kept or deleted, we're agreed that as long as sources can be found the article can be kept in one form or another. NickCT (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, perhaps I was just over-analyzing your comment.  freshacconci  talk to me  18:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Sources I've started a list of potential sources that can be used on the article talk page, limiting it to 3rd party (i.e. not gallery catalogues, press releases, pamphlets, etc.).  freshacconci  talk to me  18:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Brown seems very active, but good sources seem to elude web-searches. However, I found this reliable source  Jonpatterns (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That is the 3rd time someone has provided the same source, it is the same one I listed in the nomination. Being active is not an argument for notability and since all of us seem to only find the one same source only strengthens the view that she is not widely spoken of. The new sources being listed on the talkpage of the article still do not meet WP:GNG most of them are just acknowledgement of her position at the gallery and not actually about her or her work, hopefully the library visit by the page creator will turn up some valid sources.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Snark isn't really helpful. As for the sources on the talk page, that's not actually true. The esse review is just that, a review of her work and esse is a respected art magazine and counts as a reliable source. The book as well is valid. The writer is independent of the publisher and there would be editorial autonomy. Yes, it's a book published by the gallery that exhibited the work but it counts as independent within the relatively small Canadian art world. I wouldn't use the book to back up extraordinary claims but as a RS it is useful for establishing notability. So far, there are three RSs and MainStreetStudio has assured us that there are non-electronic sources available. Once those are available I believe this will be an easy keep as the artist actually is notable, we just can't verify it yet.  freshacconci  talk to me  15:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What snark? I stated the fact that people are regurgitating the same story which was acknowledged in the nomination and pointed out "Very Active" is not a inclusion criteria. As for the sources yes I can agree some of them are reliable sources but do they cover the artist in any kind of depth, or are they just reviews of her work? If they are reviews of her work does that make the work notable or her? Is it always the same piece of work or is it a review of different pieces? I don't have access to the book, is the book a sales tools to encourage sales and visits to the gallery? If so can it be considered reliable? - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * One review by itself wouldn't count for much but a review in a respected magazine amongst other RSs is a good source. The book is from a non-profit gallery and the work wouldn't be for sale in any case, so no it's not promotional. As I said, in Canada, books are often published in this way and it's so that there are academic and critical resources available. Canada does not have a large independent publishing industry. Brown's exhibition record in large museums is actually enough to establish notability per WP:ARTIST and, I believe, WP:GNG. Verifiability is the issue at this point and three good sources go along way to verify the assertion of notability.  freshacconci  talk to me  16:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I've edited the page to include additional secondary sources, a list of collections, awards, and reviews. Thank you everyone for the suggestions and advice. MainStreetStudio (talk) 03:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep With the sources added this now easily passes WP:GNG. I never doubted the artist was notable given her exhibition record but with sources like the Globe and Mail, Georgia Straight, C Magazine, esse, and the book, this is now an obvious keep.  freshacconci  talk to me  16:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep As the original nominator I now feel this article has now proven notability of the subject to meet WP:GNG and WP:Artist, however I will not close/withdraw this as there are still outstanding delete votes. I applaud all involved for the improvement to the article. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:30, 15 March 2015 (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.