Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled (1998 painting by Ellen Gallagher)


 * 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) Garuda3 (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Untitled (1998 painting by Ellen Gallagher)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

As much as I hate it, I think the notability tag on this article is correct. Searching is difficult because of the generic title, but I did my best and am reasonably confident when I say there appears to be no significant coverage of this painting specifically. I checked Google, GBooks, Google Scholar, and TWL and found much coverage of Gallagher but nothing about this particular painting in specific. Would prefer merge/redirect to deletion - only reason I didn't do it is because I suspect it would be challenged so no sense wasting the time. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the artist. I don't see any coverage about this particular work, only catalogue listings or mentioned in conjunction with the larger body of work by the artist. Oaktree b (talk) 05:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, the National Galleries of Scotland link and the source of the funding used for the purchase is enough for notability for a painting. It was purchased and stored by the institution, creating the verification and notability used for visual art articles on Wikipedia, and funds for this purchase come from the National Heritage Memorial Fund which, to quote its lead, "was set up in 1980 to save the most outstanding parts of the British national heritage". Randy Kryn (talk) 11:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there an explicit exception to the GNG for paintings somewhere? Otherwise, National Gallery or not, it needs significant coverage just like anything else does. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's been the standard at visual arts pages since I've been aware of them. A reputable museum listing is all that's required, it proves notability. The artist here is certainly notable, and plenty of her paintings have Wikipedia pages. The funding by the National Heritage Memorial Fund seems to put this one over the edge, they don't play around with what they fund. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I respect that the National Gallery ownership is very serious and I'm not trying to undermine or attack their legitimacy. But my understanding is that all pages are subject to the GNG except in areas with specific carved-out exceptions such as WP:NPROF. There is not an established a carve-out for paintings/visual works insofar as I understand. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As long as I've been taking note of it a museum citation is regarded as a major reputable source and usually is all the reference needed to promote a page from draft status to visible space. This practice just seems common sense and, as with this page, additional notability would be contained in the funding source for the purchase of the artwork. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not denying that the museum is a reliable source for the purchase, but simply being purchased does not constitute significant coverage. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Ellen Gallagher is a famous artist and it would be unlikely that a national gallery acquired it it wasn't notable. I know also these very large pieces tend have their own existance, and they become famous in their own right. There is something very special about them. It think it is notable.   scope_creep Talk  12:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I can only hope that the closer accords this vote the minimal weight it deserves. Feeling that this piece is special and notable is hardly a policy-based argument for keeping, particularly in the absolute absence of significant coverage of the individual painting. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment I agree that it is pretty well-established that a painting acquired by a major public gallery is at least presumed notable, and for a national gallery that would be pretty decisive. Mccapra (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep this work is discussed in the Grove Encyclopedia of American Art and this essay by the Tate as well as in books (some I can only see in snippet) such as The Secret Theory of Drawing and Refining the Imagination. Mccapra (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: the encyclopedia would not be improved by the removal of this article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:57, 23 November 2022 (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.