Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber Dalton

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 Redirect to Articulate Ink. --MelanieN (talk) 23:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Amber Dalton

Amber Dalton (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)

Insufficient evidence of notability -- fails WP:ARTIST (side note: This article was created as a part of this meetup: Wikipedia:Meetup/Regina/ArtAndFeminism 2016/University of Regina. The meetup seems to have produced a lot of articles of questionable quality/notability -- nearly all of them either have been deleted or have ongoing AfDs.) IagoQnsi (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep and redirect to Articulate Ink. Three of the sources in the article are solid articles about the printmaking collective (of which two are from different years and the third is undated). All say a little about Dalton as one of the four founders, but the only source with any biographical detail is the Saskatchewan NAC bio, which is an appendage to the undated source: they featured the collective as "Artist of the month" and linked to bios of the four people. I was unable to find sufficient evidence that Dalton is independently notable, but I do believe the collective has just enough coverage to demonstrate notability. Dalton - or one of the others - may go on to a notable career, so I see no point in deletion: I advocate moving the article and rewriting it to be about the collective while keeping the redirect and history, and adding redirects for the other three. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with Yngvadottir. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with Drmies. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with Xanthomelanoussprog. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep and redirect per Xanthomelanoussprog. There are not enough sources to demonstrate notability. I started Articulate Ink, which is marginally notable, with very short thumbnails of the artists. If any of them get independently notable they will merit stand-alone articles. Is anyone interested in de-orphaning Articulate Ink? Aymatth2 (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep Based on the sources appears to be a well-established artist, with sufficient independent newspaper coverage to establish notability. Gamaliel (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep all content and Merge per recommendation of YngvadottirSadads (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: Six of the ongoing AfDs referred to in the nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber Dalton, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martha Cole, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marilyn Levine, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marsha Kennedy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marilyn Levine and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iris Hauser have been initiated by IagoQnsi. The event where an article was created is not in itself a valid criterion for deletion. That articles should be deleted because related articles have been also been nominated for deletion is also not a valid criterion; The AfD procedure for deleting multiple pages does not apply here, and should not be used as an argument. Mduvekot (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep and Merge per recommendation of Yngvadottir. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep as separate article as the RS seems adequate, or as second best keep all content and merge to article on the collectiveAtlantic306 (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Articulate Ink per Yngvadottir. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• Merge with Articulate Ink, per above. Individual notable as part of that organization. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• Redirect. I am not totally satisfied with the notability of Articulate Ink, but she is in any case already covered there and there's nothing that needs merging. It was not a wise decision to make this article. Leaders of editathons are in my opinion expected to do screening, to guide the participants from making articles that will not be accepted--which is never a good introduction to WP. DGG ( talk ) 07:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The Articulate Ink collective is notable enough.There are several newspaper stories devoted to the collective, enough to satisfy WP:GNG criteria, which is not hard. The problem with this individual artist is that only one independent source, Saskatchewan Network for Art Collecting, gives any significant coverage, a sort of CV. The other sources just mention her as a member of the collective. Yes, the editathon leader should have given better guidance. The deletions at the Wikipedia:Meetup/Regina/ArtAndFeminism 2016/University of Regina#List of articles give a negative message to editors who want to counter systemic bias. But creating articles on subjects that are not [yet] technically notable is not the solution. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep as separate article, per Mduvekot and Gamaliel — OwenBlacker (Talk) 10:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Articulate Ink. Every reference used (as of now) connects her impact with her role in that collective. I can't see how the reader is better served by having two separate articles about entirely overlapping topics. If Ms. Dalton played a central role in establishing AI, perhaps that article should have a section about her role; I don't know the topic well enough to have an opinion on that. But I can't see what purpose is served by having two separate articles. -Pete (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• Redirect to Articulate Ink ("keep and redirect" is somewhat confusing): The subject seems to only be known as the creator of Articulate Ink. Redirection gives the reader more context about the actual company itself as well as the subject's role in its creation. The subject is not retired yet, so I have no prejudice to a future standalone article, but for now redirection is a sound step. Esquivalience ^t 23:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment Just to clarify, I was arguing for the article to be moved and Amber Dalton to remain as a redirect. I'm unsure why a new article on Articulate Ink was created in the meantime - that was a red link when I posted here. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Yngvadottir: That was me. I wanted to see if an Articulate Ink article would look notable, and the easiest way was to start it. I agree with changing this article to a redirect, keeping its history. I saw that articles on two other collective members, Michelle Brownridge and Karli Jessup, were speedy deleted A7 (No credible indication of importance) and G12 (Unambiguous copyright infringement) on 9 March, presumably more fall-out from the editathon. I wonder if they should be made redirects too? Aymatth2 (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep/Merge Dalton in her own right is borderline but AI certainly notable. I'm happy to see both articles exist.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

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.