Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Artists

WP:DSARTIST

Please add MUSIC-related discussions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music, not here.

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Artists (in the visual arts only). It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Artists|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Artists (in the visual arts only). For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from April 2016) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Artists/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Artists

Shinji Suzuki

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

Promotional article written by a coi/upe editor. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth references from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have to agree, that there are not enough independent secondary reliable sources. I really was hoping that that significant coverage would emerge (as a bonsai fan), however that is not the case. I also think that it's interesting there is not an article on them in JP-WP, but perhaps that is for the same reason. I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Maybe in a few more years, but not now. Netherzone (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 12:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scott King (artist)

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

This article doesn't appear to meet the WP:BIO. Specifically I do not believe there is enough widespread coverage by secondary reliable sources. I have tried to do some research, but of the few sources available these are either primary sources or linked to the subject. Sksatsuma (talk) 10:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Visual arts. Sksatsuma (talk) 10:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - sources exist - I'm finding coverage online to substantiate sigcov. Not !voting yet, but I'm pretty sure he meets notability for GNG if not also for NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yikes! I can see why this was nominated for deletion in its previous form. I have updated the article to show his work in MoMA and Tate. But it sure needs a little bit more help. Crummy article is used on https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/scott-king-2763 and https://contemporaryartsociety.org/artists/scott-king --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I apologise if I may have been a bit hasty with the deletion discussion! I had a short search for sources and came up short, but it looks like I could've dug a bit deeper. Appreciate the work you've done :) Sksatsuma (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sksatsuma, when searching for this artist (at least from the U.S.) many of the hits that come back were for Corretta Scott King, so it helps to use additional search terms like "graphic designer" or "artist" or "illustrator" or even U.K., England or British. This helps filter out the correct Scott King. If you haven't already read WP:BEFORE, there is also some helpful info there. Netherzone (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone Thank you for the advice - it's appreciated, it was definitely something that could've been done more thoroughly. I have read WP:BEFORE but did not follow it well! Sksatsuma (talk) 13:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The works of this British graphic designer are present in the notable museum permanent collections of the (Tate, and MoMA), therefore meets criteria #4 of WP:NARTIST; while the in-depth significant coverage in these: meets WP:GNG: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Additionally, there is this interview in Andy Warhol's Interview magazine which has quite a bit of editorial content and in-depth discussion (not a trivial interview). Other interviews: [8], [9], [10], and [11]. Interviews are normally thought of as primary sources, but I consider the first one listed here to be in-depth enough (and with enough input from the interviewer to be considered). Exhibitions include the Institute of Contemporary Arts, Barbican and Studio Voltaire in London; Museum of Modern Art and White Columns, in New York; Palais de Tokyo, Paris; State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg; Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago; Portikus, Frankfurt; and Kunstverein Munich. He's notable. Netherzone (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Schmid

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

Fails WP:PROF, nothing in google scholar for *this* eric schmid, none of the listed papers have any significant number of citations Psychastes (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Switzerland, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics, Illinois, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No sign whatsoever of WP:NPROF for this current PhD student. I am skeptical of WP:NCREATIVE, and the current article does not make a case for it. Commenting that several of the references in the article do not appear to mention the subject here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm still looking into sources in the article and a BEFORE, but it seems that what is here are a lot of name-check mentions, listings, connected non-independent sources, or brief snippet of content that are basically mentions rather than sustained in-depth significant coverage that we would normally see for a notable artist. No notable exhibitions, nor works in permanent collections of notable museums or national galleries, nor the usual art historical sources nor art critical/theoretical coverage. Holding off on !Voting for now until I do a deeper search, but it looks like he is not a notable artist or curator. Also want to mention that curators do not inherit the notability of the artists they select for shows they curate. Netherzone (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (Someone has to cast the first !vote) -- one reason for general guidelines like WP:NPROF's statement that graduate students are very rarely notable is to help wade through mountains of side-mentions, mentions-of-groups-participated-in, etc. and all the other near citations that this article is full of and let us ask, "is there a significant reliable source that says that this person is significantly important in any of his fields?" Without it, it's WP:TOOSOON to have an article. (keep up the good work Eric...) -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree it is WP:TOOSOON for any criteria in WP:NPROF and likely also for WP:NARTIST since I dont see any indication that he is part of a permanent collection or even had his own solo exhibition yet. For example the Speak Local exhibition was not a solo exhibition and it doesnt look like any of the others were either. Similarly I dont see any in depth profiles that would amount to notability per WP:GNG. --hroest 14:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree on the comments above, especially the Too Soon comments. Not yet. Go4thProsper (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's WP:TOOSOON for this multidisciplinary person, they don't meet WP:NACADEMIC nor WP:NARTIST at this time. Maybe in a few years, but not now.

Stephanie Seungmin Kim

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

Strongly suspect this is WP:COI. New user created this page, made trivial edits to get ability to create articles, and created it.

ko:김승민 큐레이터 ("Kim Seung-min Curator") this is the corresponding article on the Korean Wikipedia; it probably should be deleted too because it's clearly COI. It was created by a "Curatorkim" user (likely Kim herself); the article was made just a few days before the enwiki version.

My guess is that Kim hired someone to write this article in English for her. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, South Korea, and United Kingdom. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. UnregisteredBiohazard (what i do • what did i do now?) 03:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:COI concerns unless there are WP:RS on the issue. Wynwick55gl (talk) 08:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Halley ^{luv Filipino ❤} (Talk) 09:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mentions of her here and there, biographies on affiliated sites. No independent significant coverage. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Grapesurgeon you're right. She hired User:Eavesayes but after a decline another bad faith editor posted the same draft on the mainspace. Gheus (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Tye McKenzie

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

Biography of an artist, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NARTIST. As always, artists are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they existed, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on significant coverage and analysis about their work in sources independent of themselves -- but the strongest notability claim attempted here is that she was exhibited at the local art gallery in her own hometown, which is not an instant notability pass in and of itself if there's no evidence of any wider more-than-local attention, and the article is referenced mainly to primary sources that aren't support for notability, such as her paid-inclusion obituary in the newspaper classifieds and the exhibition catalogues self-published by the directly affiliated gallery.
The only third-party source shown here at all is a single article in the local media about the local art supply store she owned, which is not enough coverage to singlehandedly vault her over GNG all by itself if it's the only non-primary source she's got. Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added references from an article in a peer-reviewed historical journal, as well as more information about permanent collections and an award. I hope that helps to support notability in this case. Diving into newspapers will need to wait for a couple of weeks.

I'm curious about your references to more-than-local attention: this may make the case for notability more difficult for people working in more rural & remote areas, as references to success in bigger cities are less likely to be seen as local only. Maybe this is an issue that's been discussed before, but I feel like it's worth thinking about. Skjanes tbay (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The subject fails WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. The article relies on the catalog from the posthumous retrospective exhibition at local Thunder Bay Art Gallery. Other sources are local to Thunder Bay. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep The discussion of her work in a peer reviewed historical journal (which I unfortunately cannot access) together with the award and some coverage in local newspapers is enough to keep this per GNG and WP:HEY - there is no requirement to be well known on a national or global level as long as there is independent coverage. --hroest 18:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Cooper (Model maker)

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

Fails WP:GNG no significant coverage, beyond listings and credits. Declined 5 times at WP:AFC but moved to mainspace repeatedly by User:Orlando Davis who states “ I don't agree with notability tags. The subject may take it personally. Deletion makes more sense, or leave it alone.” so here we are. Theroadislong (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Film, and Visual arts. Theroadislong (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fine-Scale Modeler, The Evening Independent, and Bay News 9 are all highly reliable and independent. The film credits and interview articles should be noted. Significant changes have been made after each time it was turned down. Orlando Davis (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With niche sourcing like Fine-Scale Modeler, one good way to establish it as a RS is to show where the source is seen as a RS by other RS, particularly academic/scholarly sources. Offhand I see it used listed in a further reading section in this CRC Press book and a note in this Taylor & Francis. I wasn't able to find much more. The magazine was owned by Kalmbach Media but was sold to Firecrown Media last year. It looks like this is probably usable, but I'd recommend running it through WP:RS/N to be certain.

As far as interviews go, those are seen as primary sources regardless of where they're posted unless they're written in prose. The standard interview format is pretty much just question and answer, without any sort of accompanying article. As such, they almost always have little to no editorial oversight or fact-checking beyond formatting and spell-check. This is a very widely held stance on Wikipedia and is unlikely to ever change.

Now, when it comes to film credits the issue here is that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by the person working on a notable production or with notable people. The reason for this is that there can be hundreds to even thousands of people working on a film. According to this, over 3,000 people worked on Iron Man 3, so just working on a notable film isn't enough to establish notability - you need coverage in independent and reliable sources that specific highlight the person in question. So if there was a RS review that stated "Randy Cooper's work on IM2 was fantastic", that would count. However with his work being so specific, it's unlikely that he would be highlighted over say, the person or company who was overall in charge of VFX.

Finally, I guess I'd be remiss if I didn't say that local coverage tends to be kind of seen as routine on Wikipedia as local outlets are more likely to cover a local person. So in this case what you will need to do is help establish how this coverage should be seen as more than just local, routine coverage. Viewership/circulation numbers are a great way of doing this. So for example, a local paper with a fairly low readership would be seen as kind of routine whereas say, an article in a major, well circulated paper would be seen as a much stronger source. Now to be fair, there's nothing official saying that local coverage can't be used, but it is typically seen as a weaker source and shouldn't be doing the heavy lifting in an AfD discussion. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response.

Bay News has a very high viewership (1.76 Million), (source 11). Charter Communications

The Evening Independent was a major newspaper in the Tampa Bay area and was merged as the Tampa Bay Times in 1986, which has a circulation of over 100k not including the more widely read digital edition. 1)Times Publishing Company 2) Tampa Bay Times Orlando Davis (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fine Scale Modeler magazine is ok for sourcing, the rest either aren't online, trivial mentions or primary sources. I can't pull anything up. Just not enough sourcing for wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have two solid sources so far: Fine Scale Modeler and the Evening Independent. Also, we should be able to use the five interviews due to the Ignore-all-rules rule since it is an article that is obviously notable, and the rules are getting in the way. Interviews by the hobby magazines Sci-Fi-Modeler., Psycho Moya Styrene, the YouTube channels Richard Cleveland (Amazing Plastic), Adam Savage’s Tested (A YouTube channel with almost 7 million subscribers and the public television Bay news, with a viewership of 1.76 million make Randy notable, and the Ignore All Rules rule was put in place for situations like this when the rules get in the way of an obviously notable article. He built many models that were used for major films such as Starship Troopers, Iron Man 2, Stargate, Spider-Man 2, and many others. Just looking at his older models, it's obvious that the style of spaceships he created was used for Starship Troopers, a major movie!

And what's the difference between an interview and an article in this case? For this article, the part that matters for notability is that he is significant enough to be written about and interviewed by various significant sources. Orlando Davis (talk) 11:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Orlando Davis and the extent of the sources. Meets GNG and highlights the career of one of the notable science fiction model designers. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sci-fi & Fantasy Modeller, and Fine Scale Modeler are credible sources where he is the interview subject. Agnieszka653 (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Stejskal (artist)

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

This article survived an AfD in 2006 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stejskal) but doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG in that discussion. There are some results in Google books, but appear to be namesakes from the 19th century and other periods outside of this one's lifespan. C 679 17:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Czech Republic, and Australia. C 679 17:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep on the basis that he is held by National Library of Australia and Moravian Gallery, both important and discerning public institutions. I've added a few sources for that. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the references, I don't see either of those covering Stejskal in detail. Excerpts: NL: "and a collection of theatre posters designed by Josef Stejskal (through the Esso Project)" SL (caption only): "above: Josef Stejskal, State Library staff member and designer of theatre posters" Additionally, they are not "independent of the subject". C 679 06:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, and certainly coverage is in passing. However, I do note that it meets Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals 4 b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition and (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Also I don't see why the National Library report would be other than "independent of the subject" since he had no association with him when they collected his works. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 07:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just to update: have also added info about artist holdings in National Gallery and State Library of NSW. Some acquired by public collections, some donated by third parties, some donations of artist. To me it establishes there's notability in relevant Aus art, library, theatre circles, but I acknowledge that sources remain thin. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the recently added sources help him pass WP:GNG. I haven't found any meaningful source, just databases. FromCzech (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looks like he's also held by the Library of Congress[12], but these are archival collections rather than art collections, so the inclusion is less useful for notability. Also, I'm not sure where we'd source any additional yet basic biographical information. Jahaza (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He meets WP:CREATIVE#4, being represented in the permanent collections of the National Gallery of Australia and the Moravian Gallery in Brno, as well as the National Library of Australia and the State Library of New South Wales, and the Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division [13]. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on NCREATIVE, like others above. The source cited for the National Library of Australia claim specifically describes their purchase of his posters among "some notable acquisition of pictorial material" [14], which I think reinforces that these institutions have deliberately sought out his work for being somehow significant. Toadspike [Talk] 22:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agnes Gallus

AfDs for this article:

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

Article previously deleted in November 2024 before being recreated in draft form this winter and then moved back into mainspace about two weeks ago, but still not properly sourcing any meaningful claim to passing WP:NARTIST. As always, artists are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage and analysis about them, but this is still based mostly on the exact same primary sources as the first time -- gallery shows sourced to the self-published websites of the galleries that held them rather than GNG-worthy coverage about the shows, a piece about her life and death written by her own daughter, and on and so forth.
The very few new sources that have been added still aren't reliable or GNG-worthy either, however: there's a PDF copy of a book that apparently has one of her drawings in it, where we would need to see media reporting "Agnes Gallus drawing selected for inclusion in book" as a news story to deem her notable for that, and there's her paid-inclusion obituary in the newspaper classifieds.
There's still nothing here that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass GNG on much, much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Possible COI? See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harrietchan. Family? PamD 07:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've undeleted the previous version to give editors visibility of what has been before so that their thinking can be informed. Schwede 66 23:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback, @Bearcat. I understand and appreciate Wikipedia’s policies around notability and reliable sourcing, especially in accordance with WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. That said, I would like to respond to a few points regarding the article in question:

Substantial Revisions: After the article was deleted the first time in November 2024, I significantly revised and expanded the content to better support notability. The second version has undergone considerable editorial improvement thanks to the thoughtful contributions of @buysomeapples, who helped refine its tone and structure.

New Sources: While I acknowledge that some sources may still be borderline under WP:GNG standards, I’ve actively worked to include more third-party references. Some of these include published catalogues, archived media pieces, and mentions in group exhibition reviews—not just self-published gallery pages. I’m continuing to search for stronger secondary coverage and am open to suggestions on more specific types of sources that would help meet the bar.

Concerns About Bias: I want to gently raise that the recurring deletion of this article—despite ongoing efforts to improve it—feels disheartening, particularly in light of the many articles on male artists with similar levels of coverage that remain on the platform. While I fully support Wikipedia’s neutrality and sourcing policies, I hope we can also be mindful of how systemic bias can unintentionally influence these decisions. My intention is not to accuse any individual editor but to invite a broader reflection on how we apply notability standards consistently across gender lines.

I remain committed to improving this article in line with Wikipedia’s guidelines and am grateful for any constructive advice or mentorship on how best to proceed. Harrietcyy (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2025 — Harrietcyy (User talk:Harrietcyy) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia does have a gender imbalance but it's guidelines are applied equally to everyone. If you know of any articles about male artists that don't meet guidelines, those should also be improved or deleted. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep I accepted the draft because it seemed to meet WP:NARTIST 4 and because Ref 1 seems substantial enough (Saskatchewan: Art and Artists) seemed substantial enough. I won't be bothered if this gets deleted though, it's a borderline case even if it is interesting. BuySomeApples (talk) 09:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear; Saskatchewan Art and Artists is a biographical sketch in a non-WP:GNG-worthy directory self-published by a gallery she was directly affiliated with — and even if we ignore all of those problems and accept it anyway just because it seems "substantial", it still takes a lot more than just one notability-supporting source to establish passage of GNG. So that wasn't a solid notability-locking source to begin with, and wouldn't be enough all by itself regardless. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, NARTIST #4d was the main thing that made up my mind but I can see how it's an edge case. I wouldn't say that it meets GNG at all. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citation 1 - Saskatchewan: Art and Artists is connected to two separate major Saskatchewan galleries, the Norman Mackenzie Gallery and the Regina Public Library (Dunlop Gallery) - her work was collected/shown at both of these galleries. These are professional, not personal affiliations. That’s what art galleries do - they publish biographical information about noteworthy artists in their collections. These are highly regarded galleries which makes her inclusion noteworthy.

Citation 3 - SKNAC - Saskatchewan Network for Art Collectors - is a separate organization. Again, evidence she is recognized by this group as a noteworthy artist in Saskatchewan.

Citation 6 - the publication of her work in Kate Waterhouse’s book is an example that her work was published in an independent booklet with no personal affiliation.

Citation 7 - her work was exhibited posthumously by SK Arts - a respected organization. This citation was added to address an earlier query from the previously deleted Wikipedia entry requesting “proof” she did in fact exhibit her work at notable galleries

Citation 8 - another posthumous exhibit organized by a separate organization, the Saskatchewan Arts Council, again, addressing query re: Citation 7

Citation 9 - again, addressing query re: her work in permanent collections, in this case the University of Regina - again, a separate organization. Her work is part of the prestigious “Presidents’ Collection” as part of a donation by Morris Schumiatcher, a noteworthy lawyer, art patron and art collector.

Clearly, there are several notability-supporting sources, as above, re: her work collected and exhibited in several notable Saskatchewan galleries and organizations, namely the Norman Mackenzie Gallery, the Regina Public Gallery, the Saskatchewan Arts Board a.k.a. Saskatchewan Network for Art Collectors, the University of Regina President’s Collection I do not understand how his is “borderline”.

If the concern is re: personal affiliations, I suggest removing Citation 2. Harrietcyy (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes artist notability with works being in the Dunlop and Mackenzie gallery collections. Sourcing seems fine. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do we have independent and secondary sources to verify her work is in those permanent collections? I had a strangely hard time finding anything, but happy to reevaluate if I missed something. I don't think we can rely on obit or SKNAC bio given WP:NARTIST 4d is the best argument for !keep. Also just a note, subject worked for University of Regina (1), which is also affiliated with MacKenzie Gallery. Zzz plant (talk) 00:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the deletion discussion, I’d like to further address some of the comments and questions:

Regarding Notability:

Agnes Gallus was a regular participant in The Emma Lake artists workshop, created as a summer workshop for professional artists (ie. not Sunday painters). Her participation is verified in these links:

https://e-artexte.ca/id/eprint/3155/

https://e-artexte.ca/id/eprint/3158/

She is also listed as a professional artist/maker by the Government of Canada.

https://app.pch.gc.ca/application/aac-aic/artiste_detailler_bas-artist_detail_bas.app?rID=6004&fID=2&lang=en&qlang=en&pID=1&an=Agnes+Gallus&ps=50&sort=AM_ASC

Her work was exhibited and is in the permanent collections of prominent art galleries, as cited.

https://library.usask.ca/gp/sk/cy/Aarchives/2012may10/artsboard2012may18/www.artsboard.sk.ca/news/393/2050-agnes-gallus.html

Regarding “Affiliation”:

Artists of note are always collected and exhibited by galleries, universities, and other organizations. For example, members of the Regina Five, including Ted Godwin, Arthur McKay and Kenneth Lochead, were on faculty at the University of Saskatchewan and their work was also collected in the University Archives, as well as the Saskatchewan Arts Board and Mackenzie Art Galleries, etc. If you look at the entries of ANY visual artist they likely taught classes and gave lectures at prominent institutions, and were also collected and exhibited by these and other organizations. To question the citations of Agnes Gallus as “affiliations” would be to question the validity of citations of many professional working artists.

There is a larger point to address about the ongoing question of the integrity of her notability. She was clearly a professional working artist who was part of a larger prairie art movement in Saskatchewan and recognized as such. That she was an “outsider” as a woman artist in a male-dominated profession and also as a refugee, is additionally worthy of note. As archivists and writers, I feel an important of our work is to continue to correct the systemic bias within certain professions, such as the arts and sciences, and view them within the context of a wider lens. Harrietcyy (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+Delete I did not vote in the first nomination as it was a straight forward delete and I saw no reason to pile on. I do not see any significant changes in the substance of the article since then. MacKenzie Art Gallery and Dunlop Art Gallery are small regional venues that are not particularly notable. Fails WP:ARTIST. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep her work is part of the permanent exhibition of notable (though local) museums/galleries. An artist can be locally known and achieve notability, as long as the notability is clearly demonstrated as it is the case here, there is no requirement of global fame. Clearly meets NARTIST#4(d) --hroest 13:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]