Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nina Sellars


 * 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 meets the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Nina Sellars

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and the professor test. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 09:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - I haven't looked into the subject, but this looks like it was created by a new user as part of the Art+Feminism series of meetups yesterday. There are more events related to women and feminism going on today. Looks pretty bitey to be taking these articles to AfD so soon. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't think it's bitey to respond to floods of articles about non-notable people with an AfD (and I wish the people who organise such mass article creations would stress WP:RS and WP:N more). The guideline here is obviously WP:ARTIST rather than WP:PROF, since the subject has no cited academic publications. The artist criteria are:
 * 1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. -- I'm seeing a half-dozen citations in books, which I don't think counts as "widely cited"
 * 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. -- I don't think this is true either
 * 3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. -- I can find no reviews specifically of Sellars' work, although she gets brief mentions in reviews of some multi-artist exhibits
 * 4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. -- the only real possibility here, I think, is (b), and I don't think "substantial" and "significant" are satisfied
 * It should be noted that Sellars has worked in collaboration with Stelarc, who is notable (but WP:NOTINHERITED). -- 120.17.65.148 (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Multiple solo exhibitions, several high-profile group exhibitions (including at the Wellcome Trust and the Trinity College Science Gallery - science/art crossover audience). One of the Stelarc/Sellars pieces was reviewed in depth here, her work is discussed in this book on science-inspired artwork and in this book, she's one of several examples of science/art collaborations described in high-profile science journals - the BMJ (free reprint here) and Nature here (not free) - are we done yet? Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep notable exhibitions and much commented upon by others, thus satisfying WP:BASIC, e.g.,, , and . 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - while she fails the Prof test, she's clearly notable per GNG - based on the available book sources and solo exhibits in major "art" cities. Bearian (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Coverage demonstrates sufficient notability. --Michig (talk) 08:13, 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.