Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Savedge

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. Consensus that she passes WP:NARTIST, despite COI concerns. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Savedge

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NARTIST. Cursory check on Google news returns one trivial mention, and scholar.google.com returns a number of articles with trivial mentions. Nothing significant by the subject. Article was created by a contributor with connection to Richmond Artists Association. Article subject as well as the contributor have both served as the president for RAA. Graywalls (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the collections prove to be verifiable, then she would pass NARTIST on that basis. As the article stands, the citation for these collections is not verifiable. Could check the institutions to see if they have their collections online. Netherzone (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
reply @Netherzone:, for what its worth I queried https://www.vmfa.museum/collections/search-collections/?nav=1&keyword=savedge and got no result. I searched for her name in relation to the organization and she appears as a name in a trivial donor list. Graywalls (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Museums sometimes do not have the money to get all the metadata for the objects they hold into searchable digital form. For example if they pay someone $25 an hour to digitize material, and they have 1000 objects that take two hours each, then that is $50,000. See this source from July 2017. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found a source for the VMFA collection, meaning she meets WP:ARTIST. There are also more than a few decent additional sources out there. As Graywalls says, the article was recently edited by a now-blocked COI editor, so it may need cleaning up. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
and where else? "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Graywalls (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls: Several is two or more: we have the Chrysler Museum and VMFA both sourced in the article. Plus lots of Google books mentions.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I once suggested we change that from several to "two or more", but it was pointed out that it was intentionally vague to prevent gaming the system. Anyway, she is in two confirmed collections and therefore meets WP:ARTIST.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I agree she's been in VMFA's permanent Collection. I see it in Chrysler Museum: https://chrysler.org/chrysler-museum-shakes-up-contemporary-collection/ and https://chrysler.org/exhibition/remix-redux/. Can you enlighten me if this is permanent collection? Graywalls (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls: "From ancient art to works from the modern masters, our permanent collection rivals that of any American museum."ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NARTIST, art held in permanent collections of multiple galleries/museums, 3 of savedge's photos also in The Polaroid Collection (that doesn't have a wikiarticle but is wikinotable:)), (see here). Coolabahapple (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
question How do we distinguish a notable gallery from run of the mill and vanity galleries? Graywalls (talk) 07:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Graywalls, that's actually fairly straightforward, but any attempts to establish a notability guideline for art galleries that I've been involved in have been thwarted by editors who insist that art galleries are no different from green grocers. If you're really interested, we can talk about how to determine notability by objective measures. I'm just, really, really sure that the community will never accept such a guideline. Vexations (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment so I'm not firmly insisting a position for deletion at this point; however I do challenge the line of argument that appearing in an inventory of liquidation or estate sale of this nature automatically gives a Wikinotable cred to anyone and everyone who appears in an inventory list. This bankruptcy auction was notable, because of some notable contents. I would argue that it would be hinging in inherited notability, which for orgs/companies is explicitly denounced, however, other notability guidelines are silent on. This could merit further discussion elsewhere. Graywalls (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I see where you are coming from. All other !keep voters have basically agreed that the two collections (VMFA and Chrysler Museum) mean she meets WP:NARTIST. This is in line with established criteria that we apply all the time for artists. So objecting to that is to some degree rejecting established criteria. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was suggesting that based on the above, the Polaroid Collection should not be part of the consideration. Graywalls (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technically it could be, as she was in the collection once, making three collections ("once notable, always notable"). But even without it she meets the "several notable collections" guideline of WP:ARTIST.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not super-convinced, I don't like the work, and the COI editing is seriously off-putting, but there is sufficient material in reliable sources to sustain a stubby bio, and the inclusion of her work in two museum collections is supporting evidence that professionals with relevant experience in the field have critically engaged with her work (that's another way of saying that someone who knows what they're doing decided the work was important). Vexations (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations: My thoughts exactly.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and special praise for ThatMontrealIP for finding that VMFA citation. I went looking when the AfD was posted, but couldn't find it. I agree with Vexations that the article's origins, and status at nomination were pretty offputting, but I think that ThatMontrealIP has done a very appropriate cleanup. Theredproject (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Based on museum collections as per NARTIST guidelines. Netherzone (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.