Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rose Anne McGreevy


 * 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. A simple count of votes might have led to a "no consensus" close. However, in terms of policy based arguments, I am calling this one for the delete camp. References to McGreevy were presented, but as Sionk pointed out, mere mentions are not sufficient to establish notability. It can demonstrably be shown by the article references that McGreevy took part in some public exhibitions, but again this is insufficient to demonstrate notability and this was pointed out by several participants in the debate. An artist exhibiting her work is essentially just the job description of an artist. In the same way, we do not accept that scholarly publications are evidence of the notability of the publishing scholar, that is just the expected activity of academics and researchers, whether notable or not. Of the references in the article, the only one with substantial coverage appears to have been written by McGreevy herself, so is not acceptable for notability.

Of the other sources suggested during the debate, the most promising were found by Lankiveil. It was indicated that there is an article in the defunct magazine Performance. However, insufficient information was given for others to locate this article. I have searched for it myself: there is an index of the magazine contents available online but I can find no mention of McGreevy anywhere from issues 32 to 37 (which I think covers the year 1985, given as the date). Lankiveil also mentioned a Sydney Morning Herald article, but McGreevy is not named in the title and no details were given of the actual article content. Without enough information being given for other editors to assess them for notability or to locate the articles themselves then this is not sufficient. If copies of these sources are found and they are shown to establish notability, I will happily restore the article.

The long discussion on the question of the lack of an obit I have pretty much discounted either way. The existence of an obit is evidence of notability. The lack of one means nothing at all. SpinningSpark 14:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Rose Anne McGreevy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I found a website that mentions that she died about 5 days ago. And yet, I can't find any obituaries in any news publications. If a notable person dies, they are in the news, and here I see a complete absence of coverage. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This article is part of Meetup/Sydney/ArtAndFeminism MCA October 2014. --99of9 (talk) 03:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Note This article has been moved to Rose Ann McGreevy. Pam  D  05:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Article doesn't make any claims of notability - probably should have been tagged as A7 rather than AfD. -- Seahorseruler (Talk Page) (Contribs) 03:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't since my online searching indicated that a knowledgeable person would be able to find more sources and information about her - most of her career would have been pre-internet. Speedy deletion criteria allows me to nominate, but does not require it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: have expanded the article somewhat with refs to several exhibitions. She appears to be just about notable: please leave time for those more au fait with sculpture and the Australian arts scene to expand the article. Pam  D  09:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: Article content has since been expanded and referenced - please assume good faith and give the contributors a chance to flesh out the article with further details -- Chuq (talk) 07:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article may not be filled with content or many sources (yet), but sources showing notability look to be widely available. A simple search (see here) reveals that she's referenced in many books. Notability is not dependent upon an article saying "It's notable because..." or by a lack of an article's references to sources proving notability. Notability is dependent upon sources being available (see WP:NRVE). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oshwah (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. We need more than she is a sculptor who has had work in exhibitions.  I can't see anything remarkable to distinguish this artist above thousands of others.  Notability is yet to be established. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. The subject fails WP:ARTIST. There are no significant awards, notable works, innovative techniques or anything else associated with notability. WWGB (talk) 02:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep, it appears that an exhibition by McGreevy received a substantial critical review in the 1985 edition of "Performance Magazine". It certainly appears reliable enough to contribute to WP:N to my inexpert eyes.  More generally speaking, I think that given that McGreevy's career fell in the "dark zone" between when coverage is in the public domain and when coverage started to appear on the Internet.  It is therefore not surprising that a Google search doesn't turn much up, but it's not particularly surprising either.  I propose to wait six months while those editing the page find better sources, hopefully without being mauled by more seasoned editors, and we re-assess the article then.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC).
 * Comment. I've had a look on Factiva now that I have a bit more time, and turned up an additional dead tree era source that doesn't seem to be online:
 * There is also this file at the State Library of Victoria concerning this person, which might contain relevant items, not being in Melbourne I don't have easy access however. I am increasingly convinced the sources are out there though!  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC).
 * Question If this person is really a notable sculptur, then why hasn't anyone in the media noticed that she died 10 days ago? Notable people get articles in newspapers when they die, and here all I see is a post on vimeo. If she was notable, why does no one in the media care that she just died? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair question. I'm very doubtful about the notability of this person - there is certainly not the wealth of references suggested above. Deb (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair question. I'm very doubtful about the notability of this person - there is certainly not the wealth of references suggested above. Deb (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete onthe basis we don't write articles about every artist that makes art.We need to see significant news coverage/reviews/awards etc. According to the info so far gathered she has contributed to a couple of group exhibitions and, as the nominator says, her passing does not seem to have been covered by the media. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Sionk (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep or userfy The nomination was unnecessarily rushed; I agree that we should give the author some more time to work on the article. Iaritmioawp (talk) 10:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, considering it makes no claims to notability it would have been justified for speedy deletion, let alone AfD. If there's some claim to noteworthiness, an author has at least to include it. No-one yet has come up with evidence of her notability (brief mentions in a Google search hardly count). Sionk (talk) 11:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments like these scare the crap out of me. Do people really think that this article is speedy deletable? I mean, if so, just imagine the massive volume of worthy stubs that are getting deleted. Speedy deletion is very limited for good reason. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Australian artist who has exhibited in four group shows. Are you seriously saying that is a claim to notability? In that case, any professional who does their job would be notable. Sionk (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:SIGNIFICANCE - A claim to notability is not required to avoid speedy deletion, only a credible claim of significance, which this article clearly has. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And what claim is that, pray? Sionk (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you read the linked page? Number 4, 5 & 6 all apply here. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well it's pointless trading "did you read my comments" comments. A claim that an artist has exhibited in an art exhibition is not a claim of significance. It's what artists do. Sionk (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, subject is notable Article was just created! why is it flagged so quickly for deletion?--Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Just because it is new it does not mean it is exempt from deletion discussions. -- Seahorseruler (Talk Page) (Contribs) 01:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And assertions of notability without rationale or justification are unhelpful to a deletion discussion. WWGB (talk) 06:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Uncertain, but what I am certain about is that the failure to find an obit (presumably this means failure to find an obit in Google) 10 days after a person's death is not proof of non-notability. The only places that publish obits that quickly are newspapers, and they tend to publish only for those famous, or well=known political or entertainment or sports personalities. Probably 95% of the bios in WP do not have an obit in 10 days. Where I';d expect an obit is in an Arts magazine or the like, and these are usually published ,only at best, and might perfectly appear a year or two later, or longer. The time distribution would be an interesting research project. But failure to find sources in Google is not proof of non-notabillity for any type of source whatsoever for any subject whatsoever,, except for people or other subjects in the types of fields which would certainly have them. Even if there is never of obit accessible online, it doesn't prove anything; we are not limited to on-line sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
 * Note: I've submitted an 'ask a librarian' enquiry to the National Library asking if they can identify any obituaries (or equivalent) in popular or industry-press. Any sources they can identify should be able to refute (or indeed validate) the deletion nomination. Therefore, please wait for a few days until their response returns. Sincerely, Wittylama 14:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I've received a response from the NLA:

"I'm afraid that I was unable to find any obituaries written for the artist Rose Ann McGreevy in the popular press. I consulted the following (hard copy) newspaper issues: Sydney Morning Herald 21-25 October; Daily Telegraph 21-24 October; Sun Herald 26 October; Australian 21-24 October; Weekend Australian 25-26.

''Obituaries in specialist or industry publications may take longer to be published than those in the popular press. For example, I also consulted all 2014 issues of Art Monthly Australia (included in the Informit Literature and Culture Collection database, which can be accessed by registered Library users from home), and found that, in each issue, obituaries were published 2 - 5 months after the subject's death. For example, if an artist died in November 2013, their obituary might appear in the April 2014 issue; if an artist died in June 2014, their obituary might be published in the September issue.''

''Finally, for your interest, it could be noted in the Wikipedia article that Rose Ann McGreevy published a book (of which the National Library holds the only copy). Details of the book are available at http://nla.gov.au/nla.cat-vn5151268 The book contains images of McGreevy's works from selected shows in 2000-1010."''


 * I hope this provides useful insight into this deletion debate and I suggest that it might be worthwhile using the Ask A Librarian when other Australia-related deletion debates come up that could use the help of the dedicated reference librarian team at the NLA :-) Wittylama 21:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete -- Unfortunately at the moment none of the four sources satisfy the General Notability Guidelines. Certainly no independent secondary sources that discuss the subject in detail. We need two of these. Am happy to change to keep if two can be found. (If they are found feel free to ping me). -- Shudde  talk 22:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 *  Weak Keep — The references that folks have found suggest that this person makes it past the notability threshold. I just don't don't buy the obituary litmus test for the reasons that raised: (a) obituaries may in fact be forthcoming in non-newspapers and (b) WP:NOTABILITY simply doesn't mean that you need obituaries written about you! Obituary or not, the fact the subject has died means that some of the concerns with WP:BLPs in general no longer apply here the normal risks and cautiousness we take in those cases can be relaxed. — m a k o  ๛  18:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Note NB WP:EDITATAFD says this note should be at the top and also at the end, so please add new material above it and not below. This article has been moved to Rose Ann McGreevy.   Pam  D  05:33, 27 October 2014 (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.