Annika Connor

Annika Connor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Apparently not notable by our standards, fails WP:ARTIST. Sourcing is very weak – interviews, blog-type sources etc; I removed some of the worst of them, but stopped when I realised that there's essentially nothing here. Someone on the HuffPost blog site named her as a "rising star". Wikipedia articles are reserved for those stars who have already risen, and thus have in-depth coverage in solid independent reliable sources. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I have to say Keep on this one. Yes sources are not great but still sufficient to prove at least notability at the right side of the threshold for inclusion. Any other concern is covered by WP:NEXIST.BabbaQ (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is absolutely nothing here to say that this painter is notable. All coverage is routine and very low quality. There are about four barely acceptable sources, and by that I mean that they just barely qualify as sources. The majority of the coverage is interview-style and promotional in nature. Fails all notability tests, and especially WP:ARTIST on all counts.104.163.148.25 (talk) 03:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Megalibrarygirl and Cullen328 may want to look at this one. Softlavender (talk) 04:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Canvassing much?--BabbaQ (talk) 08:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No, this is not canvassing; these are highly skilled, highly respected, and highly neutral administrators, who specialize in rescuing articles at AfD, particularly articles on women and artists. If I were canvassing I would have !voted myself, but I feel the case needs more research than I am willing to give it. Softlavender (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:ARTIST with three verified solo shows (and possibly a fourth) in NYC galleries, plus numerous group shows, and a significant profile[1] focusing on the subject. Also and interview at Arte Fuse. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Solo shows in notable art museums are evidence of notability, but solo shows in non-notable commercial galleries are not, since putting on such shows is their business. I do not consider Highbrow Magazine to be a reliable source for establishing notability of an artist, and this coverage looks like the product of a public relations campaign. Interviews do not establish notability because that coverage is not independent. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Note:Cullen was pinged to come here.BabbaQ (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I pinged Cullen because he is a highly skilled, highly respected, and highly neutral administrator, who specializes in rescuing articles at AfD, particularly articles on women and artists. If I were canvassing I would have !voted myself, but I did not and will not, because I feel the case needs more research than I am willing to give it. Softlavender (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]