Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennina Barnett


 * 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.  Sandstein  11:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Pennina Barnett

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability. Plenty of mentions and listings as a contributor here and there. Plenty of advertisements for books but nothing that talks about her from reliable and independent sources. Fails WP:AUTHOR.  Velella  Velella Talk 11:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  —AE  ( talk  •  contributions ) 11:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions.  —AE  ( talk  •  contributions ) 11:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  —AE  ( talk  •  contributions ) 11:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  —AE  ( talk  •  contributions ) 11:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete I cannot find enough in-depth coverage in a search independent of the article. Article had signs of falsified/ puffed up sources and claims.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete founded a new and non-notable or, at least, not-yet-notable journal. My searches found a brief mention in Women's Studies Quarterly that described her as a "textile theorist."  Lede calls her a "curator" but doesn't say where.  There are many museums of textiles, and major museums have curators of textiles; perhaps she had curated some exhibits, but it's not a claim like "curator of textiles at the V & A" would be.  I agree with ThatMontrealIP that this has a PROMO feel; Certainly text has a lot of woefully inadequate citations.   And, well, I'm just not finding notability.  Feel free ot flag me to revisit is somebody sources it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * About a hundred library holdings: . GScholar h-index of at least 5: . There do seem to be sources saying she won the ALPSP/Charlesworth Award for Best New Journal in 2005: . Some coverage: James500 (talk) 04:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Academic at Goldsmith's College, University of London:  . Curator of the modern part of the "Subversive Stitch" exhibition at the Cornerhouse Gallery, Manchester, 1988 (see Cornerhouse):     . James500 (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Library holdings are not an indication of notability. Other sources you insclude in the list above are very, very poor, passing or trivial mentions. For example you cite Maxine Bristow's personal web site as a source, and when I go there it is a personal website with the sentence "Pennina Barnett (Senior Lecturer, Department of Art, Goldsmiths, University of London)". That is not a source. Just because someone prints her name in a sentence, it does not make the source usable for notability. We are not looking for quantity of mentions at all, but rather a minimum quantity of high quality sources. Provide some high-quality sources and your argument to keep would have weight. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing to keep. I am merely providing information, mainly because someone said that they wanted to know where she had been a curator. I have no opinion about whether she is notable at this time. Library holdings are an indicator of notability if they are large enough. If there were a thousand holdings, that would be conclusive proof of notability. I express no opinion about a hundred at this time. Likewise, h-indexes are used for WP:PROF. I express no opinion about whether a h-index of 5 is sufficient at this time, I merely observe that she has one. James500 (talk) 06:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Unique words such as names of museums and universities sometimes help turn sources up in searches, but in this case I, like you, am finding mentions and work she has done, not notability as we define it on Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please provide a link to the Wikipedia page that mentions library holdings as contributing to notability. We don't go on invented criteria here. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:11, 23 September 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.