Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth King (artist)

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. Nomination "withdrawn" per WP:SKCRIT #1 now that Thincat changed !vote to keep. (non-admin closure) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth King (artist)

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

Background: see [1]. Most of the article content is based on a single Richmond Times-Dispatch article, to which the subject seems to strongly object (and I fail to see why, but that is immaterial).

I actually think that notability is clearly passed and the article should be kept, but DonFB (ping) has doubts about it. Moreover, it has been longstanding practice (see WP:BLPEDIT) that BLP subjects have some amount of control about "their" article when it comes to removing stuff of borderline encyclopedic interest; although the (alledged) subject of the article did not ask for outright deletion, it should be considered (since without the RTD source, not much remains). I therefore bring this for community consideration, even though I would myself support keeping it. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete according to WP:BIODELETE and WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE presuming it is the subject raising the matter and this is what she would prefer to happen. Thincat (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing my "delete" because the the article now seems unobjectionable and deletion has not been requested. The subject is notable but I would still support deletion if she requests it. I also commented below. Thincat (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the objected material has been removed, I see no reason in not keeping the article. Especially since she has work in the permanent collections of The Metropolitan Museum of Art in NY, the Museum of Fine Arts Houston, Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Virginia Museum of Fine Arts and other smaller museums as per [2]. Passes CREATIVE. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt the subject is notable (and thank you for improving the article to demonstrate this more clearly). However, we are not required to have an article on a subject just because they are notable. Due to our often uncouth editing (and sometimes even more uncouth AfD discussions!) these situations can deteriorate with complainants being told they are not notable and being advised against sockpuppetry, conflict of interest, autobiography and wikibabble what-not. However, since the subject did not request deletion I'll keep an eye on developments and maybe come back and change my vote. Thincat (talk) 08:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Megalibrarygirl. With works being kept in the permanent collections of The Metropolitan Museum of Art in NY, and the Museum of Fine Arts, she has notability. Antonioatrylia (talk) 09:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the record, I commented at the Help Desk. I believe King meets the General Notability Guideline (wp:GNG) and the sub-guideline, "Creative Professional" (wp:Artist). Significant coverage in reliable independent sources is not overwhelming, but I think places her over the threshhold. Her works have been exhibited in many places, including major museums, so she meets "artist." The person who wrote to the Help Desk, self-identified as King, was clearly upset by the recently-revised WP article. She did not ask for deletion, but only removal of objectionable content. That has now been done. There is, of course, no guarantee that some other editor, or the same one, will not come along someday and reinsert quotations from the Richmond Times-Dispatch newspaper article that King disliked--and, in fact, a citation of that news article is listed on a page of one of her websites. I don't consider King a highly "public" person, so if she were to request deletion of the article, citing privacy concerns, I would support. DonFB (talk) 10:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NARTIST, article reflects this thanks to Megalibrarygirl, and ..ahem.. me, "your modesty, coola, is astounding", thankyou Coolabahapple (talk) 02:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the notability is definitely there in the sources. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Elizabeth King is notable - actually, she quite famous, has been in featured in the Whitney Biennial, numerous publications, books, major museum collections, etc. Subject meets WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Included in several major collections. Meets WP:NARTIST & WP:GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The key piece of information as far as keeping the article is mentioned above: "she has work in the permanent collections of The Metropolitan Museum of Art in NY, the Museum of Fine Arts Houston, Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Virginia Museum of Fine Arts and other smaller museums as per[3] Ntherzone made a good point too which was; " she quite famous, has been in featured in the Whitney Biennial, numerous publications, books, major museum collections, etc. Subject meets WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG." Dean Esmay (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject meets notability guidelines, easily passing WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Hmlarson (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2017 (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.