Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Page


 * 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. Weak delete is still a delete. Maybe later, if more sources appear, this can be recreated but a consensus is clear at the moment. Tone 18:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Sara Page

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Doesn't seem to meet the level of the pertinent notability guidelines. Let the article speak for itself: "Sara Page did not leave any long-lasting impression or significant artistic legacy. Today she is practically forgotten. Her works remained unsold in her studio for years. The present location of most of them is unknown." —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No notability established. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 14:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The collective and exhibited works move her into the realms of WP:ARTIST notability.  The article is well referenced and is derived from sound academic research.  The relative obscurity of the subject is surely a good reason for Wikipedia to include an article about her.  Lame Name (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia requires that articles' topics be notable already. Articles aren't supposed to be written for the purpose of creating notability. Therefore, if someone is "obscure", then by definition there shouldn't be an article about that person. As far as the references are concerned, they certainly take care of the need for verifiability, but it isn't clear that any of these is a published document as opposed to an internal record or catalog related to routine business and inventory. My name's on lots of lists and I've written lots of letters too! —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You missed two sources. They were bare, numbered, external hyperlinks when you nominated the article for deletion, so that oversight is nearly excusable.  &#9786;  But Lame Name has made them more apparent, now, and they were certainly apparent in the version of the article as it stood when you wrote that comment that you have just written. Uncle G (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Sadly, Lame Name, the criteria for inclusion is that the information can be verified. If there are insufficient reliable sources for the reader to check the facts, then we cannot present a verifiable article, as explained in the general notability guidelines  Chzz  ►  20:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What about the two biographical sources (Baird and Penn) that are cited in the article, and were when you wrote that? The provenance of the Baird source is laid out below. Joanne Penn was "Postive Action Trainee in Audience Development" (whatever that is) at Wolverhampton Art Gallery, and there's information on the web log here about who performed the editorial oversight of its content.  Personally, whilst I am willing to accept that an art gallery curator writing on art history is someone writing in xyr field, I'm far less inclined to accept (as reliable) sources written by a "Postive Action Trainee in Audience Development" and edited and fact checked by a "Participation Officer" who is "knowledgeable in the field of social media" but not necessarily in the field of art history, and who obviously didn't do much checking of the "about" page (since it mis-spells "contributor" as "contributer" right in the very sentence saying who checked the correctness of the WWW site).  &#9786;  Uncle G (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Unless donating ones paintings to the Wolverhampton Art Gallery satisfies some easy criterion of WP:N. I don't see that being a little-noted and long forgotten artist qualifies her for an encyclopedia article. Lots of (almost all?) artists have painted live models  and have "attempted to reach technical perfection" though  Page, Picasso, Pollock or Cousin Helen might have different ideas of "technical perfection." Does the gallery to which she donated the paintings still exhibit them, and what do they say about them? Note: Google Book has some apparent coverage, not viewable online: "Art" 1936:"Among the more important recent gifts are oil paintings by Sara Page,..", "Art," 1939:"Among gifts are oil paintings by Sara Page.." and "Exhibition of the Royal Academy: catalogue, Volumes 125-128 (undated)" which mentions "Sara Page" paintings "Miss Ellen Page," "Miss Elsie Page" and "Harmony in blue.", "La Chronique des arts et de la curiosité‎ (1912)- Page 66: "..les miniatures de M--' Sara Page... The snippets do not show whether the coverage was significant, but they might weigh toward notability. Is it the same Sara Page in each case? Someone in England might be able to search in the library of the Royl Academy, but I could find nothing at their site about Page. Nor could I find anything at the Wolverhampton Art Museum site.  Others are welcome to try. The nice article by Olga Baird, appended to the article as a reference, which has copies of several paintings and some bio details, does not appear to have been published. Is that correct?  Edison (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Olga Baird is Curator of The Victorian Galleries at the Wolverhampton Art Gallery. It's not apparent what fact checking and peer review processes went into the publication on the Wolverhampton History &amp; Heritage WWW site, but the fact that this person is a curator does strongly indicate that this person is at the very least a paid professional, even if not a qualified expert, and an article on art history by xem is xem writing in xyr field. An interesting note on the timing and authorship here: Olga Baird is scheduled to give a lecture on Sara Page some four days from now, and it is fairly apparent who, the creator of this article, is. Uncle G (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That explains the article. And though I haven't said so before, I think it's a perfectly good article, very detailed. But if Sara Page isn't already notable, and Olga Baird's interest is in inculcating in others the enthusiasm she has for Sara Page, or even simply to document what information she has at hand for an artist whose works she happens to have in her hands, then Wikipedia it isn't a proper place to do that. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Probable Delete. Sadly, I can't see anything that makes Sara Page any more notable than any old run-of-the-mill artist today. The sources cited appear to be reliable, but the coverage appears to be either incidental or coverage that includes every single artist/person of the period. (The bit on Wolverhampton City Council's webpage is better, but we'd need more than that.) Obviously I haven't seen the books so I can only speculate about the coverage. Feel free to show me any comprehensive coverage I've missed. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:36, 19 September 2009 (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.