Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tracy Harris Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tracy_Harris
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.
Comment. Would getting a National Endowment for the Arts fellowship count towards notability? I know it wouldn't be something that would be the type of notability that would keep an article on that alone, but I wonder if it would help count towards notability as a whole.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found this link that talks about various awards she's won and various exhibitions. Of course this is a merchant-type link so I'd have to back it up with something that isn't that website, but if there's anything in here that would stand out as passing WP:ARTIST, I thought this could be something good to start out with.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to meet WP:GNG, see her biography page, which has a Bibliography section that lists about 40 independent sources that have been written about her. The titles indicate many of these are in-depth sources. I searched for and found 5 exhibition reviews in reliable sources (added to the article), they are sort of like book reviews for artists. Due to age need access to commercial databases to read. Also per WP:ARTIST #5 "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums," her works are in Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, Amarillo Museum of Art and Museum of South Texas History. I don't believe a grant is notable as they are common and could be as small as $1000, depends on which grant and how much and if there is coverage in the press for it. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there might not be secondary sourcing attached to the article but Green Cardamom's analysis suggests off-line secondary sources do exist. Some of those (even most of those) might be from the 1990s but notability is not temporary. I can't see any reason why someone would create a "fake" bibliography of 1990s sources to justify a WP article so I think we should operate on the basis that those sources are legitimate and do exist. We would need to cite them ourselves (rather than to cite the citation by the subject) but a potential for some hard work ahead is not a reason for deletion. That's the very definition of a WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM sort of problem. Stalwart11101:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why people are saying "there are no secondary sources". I added FIVE full length feature articles about the subject to the article under the "exhibition reviews" section. They may not be online to read but they are available behind paywall databases, I even went so far as to add summary abstract quotes - these articles are real, I searched for them, found them, read them. It is excellent coverage for WP:GNG purposes, far exceeding typical GNG coverage. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my commentary was more in the hypothetical and was actually an attempt to address Sue's concerns above (split by the relist) and then comment on the sources you provided. I wasn't actually suggesting there were none, more - "even if there were none, we would still have...". I knew what I meant, but really didn't make it clear. Apologies. I agree with you entirely - I think there's more than enough. Stalwart11104:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I imagine this AfD is moving towards 'no consensus' but, for what it's worth, I would like to see some effort had been made to verify the information on Harris's website. The list of exhibition reviews and the list of 'Collections' seem to be pasted off her website and we are none the wiser what they (the alleged colections and the news sources) contain. For example I've searched the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston website and can't find a reference to Harris's work. At the time of her marriage (which coincides with all the cited news reviews) the New York Times would only say she was a 'promising' artist. Seems flimsy evidence at the moment. Sionk (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They were not "pasted off her website", I found them in commercial databases as I said above. I read them in full, I even added abstract summaries for your convenience! These are real articles that have been verified but have no freebie links online. If you don't believe me, post a Resource Request, these are not difficult to retrieve and verify yourself, these are in commonly available commercial databases than many people on Wikipedia have access to. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At least one of the articles is available online. I'll add the URL. The article reviews three artists, so the abstract seems to be inaccurate. Sionk (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That abstract was not "inaccurate", it indeed is a review of Harris at the Graham gallery. That source I was able to verify its existence in the database, and that it was about a review Harris' work at the Graham gallery, but I couldn't bring up the full text so I wrote an abstract based on what I was able to verify - if I knew the full text was online free I would have linked to it as you have; but the others I did read the full text and the abstracts reflect the contents. I hope you dis-believe me and make a Resource Request to verify yourself because I don't like being put into the position of "trust me" on Wikipedia. These sources exist and you can access them to verify. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2012 (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.