Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Rosalena Brady


 * 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. Academic Challenger (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Sarah Rosalena Brady

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There doesn't appear to be any coverage in independent, reliable sources; the best I could find was an article written in the student newspaper of the university where she got her Masters. Falls short of WP:GNG, and I don't see anything that could make a claim to WP:NCREATIVE or WP:NACADEMIC. The grants and fellowships listed in the article were conferred by relatively prestigious institutions, but it doesn't appear that the grants themselves are notable, and thus likely do not comprise a case for WP:ANYBIO. signed,Rosguill talk 22:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 22:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 22:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 22:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete existing sourcing is largely primary. A search finds no WP:SIGCOV. Even the subject's CV only lists two reviews. GNG fail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Exhibiting in Los Angeles County Museum of Art and National Museum of the American Indian may grant passing WP:ARTISTS. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me that she actually had exhibits there; the article simply says that she received a grant from LACMA and "worked with" the National Museum of the American Indian. The CV that ThatMontrealIP dug up mentions a lecture, but not an exhibition, at LACMA and doesn't mention the NMAI at all. signed,Rosguill talk 23:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I can clarify that. LACMA has a relatively recent "Art + Technology lab" that is separate from the main art curatorial division. It is a bit of a throwback as LACMA did stage an exhibition of the same name in 1970-71. The current lab gives out money, arranges sponsorhips with companies (which is why article mentions the Jet propulsion lab) and may arrange LACMA sponsored talks and events. It is very much not the same as an exhibition at LACMA. I imagine the same applied to the National Museum of the American Indian, i.e it's a technology collaboration rather than an exhibition. Artists are not shy about telling you that they had a solo show somewhere big; if they did have one it would have been stated somewhere in ALL CAPS! The LACMA and NMAI mentions are both not for what we would call regular "shows". In any case you can have shows at the Guggenheim and LACMA and the Whitney and not be notable if no one reviews the show. I have searched quite deeply and found zero secondary coverage of anything she did at LACMA or the NMAI. Everything out there about these collaborations is a version of a press release or bio. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete as per above and the zero references in google scholar. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete This article uses to many sources that are either (1) connected with the subject or (2) give trivial mentions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 15:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:TOOSOON does not yet meet GNG, PROF nor NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It makes me sad that we feel we–have–to delete articles on emerging women artists. Yes, they are not-quite-famous-enough-yet. The sources are flimsy, the exhibition record isn't really there yet. It will probably be there, in due time, and when that happens, someone is going to look at this AfD and think that there's something deficient about the subject, and G4 it, or re-nominate. So, just for the record; it's probably too soon, but I have no objections to re-creation of this article once the artist has received significant critical attention. Vexations (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree u|Vexations, and for the record, if this article is recreated and she has significant coverage, or museum collections, or any of the other qualifiers, I won't hesitate in supporting a new article in the future. Netherzone (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a good idea. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 18:25, 17 June 2020 (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.