Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. E. London

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. Sandstein 09:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A. E. London[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

A. E. London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article makes some claims that would establish notability, but I cannot find credible, independent sources to verify these awards. Some blogs discuss her exhibition work, but none of these appear to provide significant coverage or meet reliable sources guidelines. It does read as if it's a copyvio from somewhere, but imagine it's the artist's own info, so not flagging on that issue StarM 20:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. StarM 20:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. StarM 20:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I might also note that only one of the source in the article (Wildlife magazine?) appears to possibly be independent critical coverage, and it is a dead link. Of the others, one source is from Blogspot, one from wordpress.com and at least one is an event announcement. Possibly (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply same here @Possibly:. When I first found this a few days ago I thought wow, there's a ton on her background, why is this long-tagged for notability especially with what I anticipated was a full feature, and then I realized there were issues. Shame as that Wildlife one seemed promising. StarM 00:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ReplyThe Wildlife Art Magazine was an independent article. It was a very nice multi-page profile about her. That fact doesn't change just because you can't read it online anymore. Netmouse (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply it is when we can't verify the claim that there was an independent article. There's no proof it actually existed, although I'm AGFing that it did and that's how it landed in the article. My concern with this is since so much was (indirectly) sourced to the artist's own materials, no one involved as actually seen the article. StarM 18:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply No Proof It actually Existed? Do you mean the article, which someone involved (me) did actually read, or do you mean the magazine? The Wildlife Art Magazine went out of business in 2009, as you can see in this announcement: http://www.natureartists.com/news_events/news.asp?NewsID=1871 It is one main source of external references on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Banovich but I don't see that article being nominated for deletion. I used to also have a link to the Build On Hope website in the references but someone deleted it. Same person appears to have also deleted some in-text references to other organizations she has been part of as "too promotional". You can see a link to them and other organizations at http://www.natureartists.com/artists/artist_biography.asp?ArtistID=1265. Netmouse (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply no offense intended, Netmouse (talk · contribs) I said I was assuming good faith that it did exist, I have no reason to doubt that you or someone might have seen it. We have no evidence, which is what verifiability is about. Build On Hope does not appear to be the type of external link that belongs in an article. If she is a part of these organizations they are not independent and do not establish notability. An article should not consist of links to organizations, but reliable sources providing in-depth, significant coverage of a subject to establish whether they meet the notability guidelines. As for Banovich, other stuff exists and you're welcome to nominate him for deletion if you believe the sourcing is too thin. That's what we do as volunteers. StarM 02:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Less Unless: Thanks for the links. I checked into them and London is a paying member of all three of those societies, including the "Society of Animal Artists". As such any coverage or prizes emanating from them is basically a member benefit. Possibly (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Possibly: Yes, I agree, as I said they are not independent so can't be used to back up the notability. Less Unless (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Possibly: I don't necessarily agree, but I am not familiar with this Society. However, the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers Association gives out the Nebula Awards, yet whether or not you are a member is not considered to reduce the notability of receiving the award. The Association of Science Fiction and Fantasy Artists likewise gives out the Chesley Awards, which is considered a high honor. Similarly the Oscars, etc. It is not common for awards to be given by societies of people particularly interested in the focus of the award? Netmouse (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Netmouse: as you said " the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers Association gives out the Nebula Awards" and "whether or not you are a member is not considered to reduce the notability of receiving the award". In the case of the wildlife conservation societies above, item #1, the prize, is a distinct members-only prize: their site says it is an award "presented to members of the Society of Animal Artists at our Annual Exhibitions". The last two items mentioned above are member pages provided as part of membership, the content of which is controlled by the artist. Possibly (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment....I am not sure this is how to respond and contribute to this discussion. However, I'll offer this and can also ,where ever appropiate ,send printed articles to substantiate the facts mentioned on her site. Also I question the "member benefit"mentioned . When an actor wins an academy award or a SAG award- is that a "member benefit"? Paid membership? Both the Society of Animal Artists and Artists for Conservation represent organizations which honor only the best of the membership with awards. Both represent the highest level of wildlife art on the planet,and few organizations or institutions exist for that purpose. The Society of Animal Artists only accepts artists which meet their standards and they honor only the vest of those members. By the way , without paid membership few ,if any,organizations which recognize artistic excellence would exist. December(UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Seascience (talk • contribs) — Seascience (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
@Possibly: I realized that later while working on the article (that only members are eligible for the award, and that's the difference) - but the Wildlife conservation artists society page does indicate it has 500 members, so an award that only 1 person has won each year for the past 40 years can hardly be described as a "member benefit", since the vast majority of its members will never win it. Netmouse (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK then let's call it a possible member benefit: you still have to be a member to get it. Possibly (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When an actor wins an academy award or a SAG award- is that a "member benefit"? Paid membership? Both the Society of Animal Artists and Artists for Conservation represent organizations which accept and honor only the best of the membership with awards. Both represent the highest level of wildlife art on the planet,and few organizations or institutions exist for that purpose. The Society of Animal Artists only accepts artists which meet their standards and they honor only the best of those members. By the way , without paid membership few ,if any,organizations which recognize artistic excellence would exist. December(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seascience (talk • contribs) — Seascience (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The awards are a bit of a red herring, as they are not that important in determining the notability of a subject. It's independent coverage by good sources that count. The fact that you say above that you have a collection of "printed articles to substantiate the facts mentioned" means you may have something to disclose. Please see your talk page. Possibly (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seascience, @Netmouse:, With all due respect, I think what she and her husband have done for animals is admirable. However regarding her work as an artist, there is simply no comparison between an Academy Award and an award from the Society of Animal Artists. Maybe if she received a Guggenheim Fellowship one could make a comparison. Re: press coverage, even if a copy of the multi-page article in Wildlife magazine can be produced, it is not enough to pass NARTIST. Even if an article ran in Artforum magazine, one article might not be enough. I found it interesting how inflated some of the claims are/were (the promotional wording has been somewhat toned-down in the past few days) - there was something like in "2014 she won Best in Show in the most prestigious shows in North America" (paraphrasing mine). This does not even make sense... what, she "won" the Whitney Biennial, or the Carnegie International, or Made in L.A.? No. Her work is represented by a tourist gallery. As far as Art Fairs, they are simply market places, it is not the same as exhibiting at MoMA or LACMA, the National Gallery or the Met. The fact that the article includes that she was "featured in a calendar" simply does not belong in an encyclopedia. Regarding the "Logo for the Sketch for Survival", it was not her logo that raised $200,000, it was the prominent people like Dame Judy Dench and Dame Helen Mirren. Again, this is misleading and does not belong in an encyclopedia article. I am all for niche art genres and outsider artists, other editors here can vouch for that, but the "Quickdraw Competition? No. I apologize if this is direct, but I feel it needs to be said. Netherzone (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously I think the subject is notable or I would not have bothered to create an article about her. As I said on the Talk page, I was really impressed by her work when I saw her at an art Fair and have no relationship to her, commercial or otherwise. I haven't been able to do much maintenance in the last decade, but clearly she has continued to be active on an influential and international scale, as a conservationist and artist both. It does look as though someone pasted a bunch of text into the article from another source that was not in wikipedia-appropriate format. I have tried to clean that up a bit and am working on finding references. I'm sure there are plenty in newspapers.com. The "needs citation" line tagged near the top was always based on a statement in the Wildlife Magazine profile of her - I wrote the article before the era of expecting every paragraph to be individually referenced. The lack of external links to this article speaks to me more of this subject area being a hole in what is covered here on Wikipedia than an indication of low notability of this particular person. We should keep the article and build around it instead of insisting on re-instating a complete lack of coverage. I see that one of her partner organizations does have a page, so with a couple weeks of work I think it could be a better, more interlinked article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netmouse (talk • contribs)
  • Delete I'm often reluctant to contribute to wildlife, watercolor, and other genres of artists who exhibit on entirely different (and insular) circuits. I feel comfortable in this case, for two reasons: 1) none of the awards come close to being the kind that will establish notability: none have their own Wikipedia pages, nor are they even mentioned on pages for organizations. 2) the society in question gives SO MANY awards every year. I'm counting 20 awards for 2019 [1]. And the society has levels/ranks of membership, the second highest of which is for people who have won the Award of Excellence more than five times which means that one award isn't even valued that highly amongst the society. London is in the 3rd rank of membership. Just for reference, the highest rank includes about 15 people, only two of whom have pages here
and of those two, both have works in museum collections, and one of whom had a solo exhibition at the Smithsonian... Theredproject (talk) 10:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I see what you mean, but a) to a certain extent, the fact that so many of their highest level artists don't have pages just reinforces my sense that this is information the encyclopedia *ought* to have but is lacking, perhaps because wildlife conservation art fans spend a lot of time traveling the planet and conserving wildlife instead of editing Wikipedia. *shrugs* I don't know. b) I DO know, however, that historically most of the gatekeepers (high level decision-makers in both professional art AND here in Wikipedia have historically been male, and the two artists whose articles you found are both 1. male, and 2. ~30 years older than London. So the fact that their artwork has penetrated further into establishment appreciation is at least somewhat related to the fact that their careers are more established, as well as being more, shall we say, traditionally acceptable for men of their era (they were both born in the 1930s). You see this observation reinforced by the fact that only 3 of the 15 highest level artists are female. Clearly there is some way in which it has been harder for women to reach that level of recognition. Many historians are now going back through time and identifying female artists who were as or more talented than their male peers, but whose work was not accepted into galleries due to gender-based attitudes. Do we want Wikipedia to continue that sexism by basing notability so strongly on things like prestigious Gallery Shows, even in this era of direct sales? Like I have said, it is not my specialty. But I would not make suppositions about the Combes award being insignificant to the society based on levels of membership. To me it mainly indicates the two are based on different criteria. Netmouse (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we're talking about different awards, since your reference leads to the Society for Animal Artists, of which London is a Signature Member and the artists you listed are Master members of that society. I was thinking of the Combes Award, which is given out by Artists For Conservation, who indicate, the "AFC's Simon Combes Conservation Award is the most prestigious award and highest honour AFC presents to a member artist who has shown artistic excellence and extraordinary contributions to the conservation cause, exemplifying the same qualities as the award's namesake." Re: the Society for Animal Artists giving out some 20 awards, some of that multiplicity is just due to giving out different awards for 2D or 3D art. Netmouse (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I highly recommend the Women in Red wikiproject if you want to help counter that imbalance, which I very much agree exists and try to correct for those women for whom Wikipedia hasn't yet caught up with available resources and sourcing. Unfortunately without reliable sources there doesn't appear to be a way for London and her female counterparts in the wildlife art fields to meet the notability guidelines. StarM 22:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Netmouse: I beg to differ with your assessment that there is gender bias, sexism or ageism involved. In the realms of Ecological art, Ecofeminist art, and some Environmental art you will find that the the vast majority of practitioners are women. And I don't mean just what you might find on WP but in general, globally, women are the major players in this arena for decades, since the 1970s. The subject of this article is simply not in that league. Netherzone (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Netmouse:The gender of an article subject is not mentioned in any of the notability criteria as being a factor. While there are projects and efforts to improve the representation of women on Wikipedia, the AFD process is not one of them; her gender is not relevant to the discussion here at all. Possibly (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Possibly: My comment about gender was in direct response to Theredproject's comment that one of the only two artists in the Society for Animal Artists' "master" level of members that had a profile here on Wikipedia also had a "solo exhibition at the Smithsonian." I know gender is not a criteria in Notability, but when one is comparing male artists born in the 1930s to a female artist born in the late 1950s, whether or not they might be exhibited in Museums, including the Smithsonian could be related to, well, a) the vast population explosion of the late 20th century, and b) gender-involved issues as to who made such decisions and according to what norms. Right now the executive director of the Smithsonian American Art Museum is female, but Robert Bateman was featured in 1987. I was commenting on how challenging it might have been for HIM to get that level of recognition THEN (as opposed to any female artist, then). Obviously, London's career was not as developed at that time. Netmouse (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The subject is obviously hard to search for online, since her last name is the capitol city of a country that was once ruled by a queen with her same first name. Try searching for her husband's name instead/in addition. See some results below. Netmouse (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the above do not look like reliable sources to me. For example the nola.com article and goodgrit magazine article are the same author and are version of the same text. Mountain Trails Gallery sells her work. Edge of the Lake Magazine is bursting with advertisements, which seems to be their main purpose. The earthfireinstitute.org links are podcasts, so not independent. Are there any RS in this new list? Please point one out. Possibly (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles by D. Burst not the same @Possible dismisses coverage by author Deborah Burst from 2015 and 2020, indicating her two articles "are version of the same text" But I would posit there is nothing strange or non-independent about an author doing a five-years-later follow-up about a subject of interest. The 2020 article includes info about the Wildlife Center London and her husband built in 2016 - info that could not possibly have been printed in 2015, and was not. My guess is that this year the author was recycling a bit of material from her initial interview with London, which the 2015 piece covers in much more extensive detail, then also reporting developments since then. Absolutely normal journalism. The question for RS is are the sources reliable and independent. The Picayune is obviously a print publication that has shifted online, with an editorial staff, etc, so yes. Good Grit Magazine has only been around since 2015 but certainly looks legit. (A new voice in Southern storytelling: Meet Good Grit magazine By Ryan Phillips – Digital Producer, Birmingham Business Journal Oct 15, 2015) Netmouse (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A._E._London&oldid=1137528136"