Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Fortnum


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Rebecca Fortnum

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG Artiquities (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 13:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete at present. Certainly no pass of WP:Prof. Little to be found of general notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep I found a little biographical information about this artist/researcher: spacefor10.org.uk, Macmillan. However, her book Contemporary British Women Artists: In Their Own Words has received reviews in The Times, southlondonwomenartists, britannica.com. You can find plenty of coverage at WorldCat and Google Books, see for example Interpreting visual culture: explorations in the hermeneutics of the visual. I can imagine an informative article about this artist and her activities. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Other than an interesting artist, her book - mentioned above - Contemporary British Women Artists: In Their Own Words is well respected.  In it she outlines the current situation with regard to women artists' status in the UK. Other outcomes: lectures at New Hall, Cambridge University, UK Friends of the National Museum Women in the Arts, Washington DC; debate during an exhibition of the photographic portraits of the artists at the ArtSpace, Camberwell College, UAL, with the writers Paula Smithard and Reina Lewis; 4 x 10 min interviews with artists (Anya Gallaccio, Tacita Dean, Sonia Boyce and Paula Rego), BBC Radio 4, Women's Hour. Reviews: Rachel Campbell-Johnson, The Times, December 20, 2006; State of Art, Issue 8, winter, 2006 (authored article); I-D Magazine February 2007; Cate Elwes, Contemporary Magazine, Issue 90, 2007; Paula Smithard, Journal of Visual Art Practice . She is an important academic , having started the Part-Time BA in Fine Art Course at Wimbledon College of Art, London,  and currently running the MA in Fine Art at Camberwell College of Art, London.  She is also a well respected curator having curated the inaugural exhibition at Gasworks, Dad,  with a project coming up at The Museum of Childhood in 2011.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Burnett (talk • contribs) 11:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Fortnum is a well respected academic, curator, writer and artist. Admittedly, she is not the latest fashionable LA numbskull. Rather, the subject of this entry has instead devoted her life to thoughtful, selfless and interesting interventions, often on behalf of other more famous artists. Even the suggestion that she be deleted, given some of the achievements listed (such as starting and running degree courses at some of the world's most prestigious art colleges) is profoundly depressing. While Pokemon is of course an engaging art/educational phenomena, are we really saying that the editors of the world's greatest encyclopaedia can devote literally dozens of separate lengthy articles to Pokemon, while deleting tiny stubs about respected thinkers? I think we need to raise our game! PaulGauguin (talk) 09:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete &mdash; WP:GNG isn't the right set of criteria here, we should consider WP:ARTIST or WP:ACADEMIC. Unfortunately, she doesn't make the cut in either of those categories. Her 1996 book has 85 citations, but none of her other works have citations in double figures. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  11:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Both WP:ARTIST and WP:ACADEMIC are clear that WP:N is sufficient to establish notability, even if the additional criteria are not met. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 07:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Weak keep. Several dozen hits at Google Books seem to validate that she is notable enough as an art world figure.  The article needs some serious work, however.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the sources found at WorldCat, Google books, etc. Bearian (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2010 (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.