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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Bischoff[edit]

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

Seems to be an interesting artist, but fails to meet WP:CREATIVE. I don't think being a project coordinator at a gallery is enough to warrant WP:N. A little too much like a resume/portfolio. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 22:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was on the fence for this, but looking at the references, I think she is passing WP:CREATIVE, since there are quite enough reviews of her works in the local and national press. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bischoff's work "Rereading Room" was recently purchased by the Morris and Helen Belkin Art Gallery. Being part of a gallery's collection warrants her WP:CREATIVE status. (Krys.ro (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

The Belkin is not a museum, it is a university gallery. WP:Creative says "multiple museum notable collections" or something like that... Please also read the CBC source which describes the article subject as an employee of the Belkin gallery. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

uh, no, WP:CREATIVE does not preclude galleries, whether part of a university, as your above statement implies, no. 4d says "is represented within the permanent collections of several notable(my emphasis) galleries or museums." Coolabahapple (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Krys.ro's user page suggests they work at the Helen Belkin Art Gallery, therefore has an undisclosed WP:COI. Doesn't invalidate the users comment though. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 22:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I agree that Krys.ro should declare any affiliations with the subject. Since they're new, they may not be aware of the issues with WP:COI. It's easy to create a COI statement and also to tag the talk page of the article with your affiliations. If you need help, feel free to ask any of us. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Arthistorian1977. There's just enough coverage. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consider the sources given to be WP:RS?104.163.147.121 (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I am very new to editing with Wikipedia, and I was not aware of the COI. I hope this does not discredit the artist in any way. My intent was not to promote the gallery, only speaking from first hand knowledge. (Krys.ro (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Delete This is a 26 year old artist. If you look at the sources, the first is her dealer, and it is not until half way down the list that I see a Vancouver Sun article on her and her work that is an actual independent reliable source. The rest is puffery. To top it off, there is a CBC source where the artist herself declares a desire to improve articles on women artists in Wikipedia. What does that source have to do with this artist, who is also an employee of the Belkin gallery cited above as a buyer of her work? Yes Wikipedia needs more articles on women artists... but no, Wikipedia does not need to bend the notability rules applied to everyone (as is argued above) to achieve that. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 05:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I could go either way but I want to push back on a few points in this discussion: 1) The Belkin is a major university art gallery. With the exception of U of Toronto, in Canada they don’t have University Museums, they often use the word Gallery. The Belkin is somewhere in the zone in between the Berkeley Art Museum and the Philadelphia ICA or MIT List. They present major exhibitions and have a permanent collection. Their director has been the curator for the Canadian pavilion at Venice. 2) Age is not directly relevant. It is indirectly relevant because it determines how long they have had to establish a track record of notable exhibitions awards and reviews. Honest question: I wonder if being young is cited more frequently in articles about women than articles about men? (citation needed, but an interesting research question!) 3) I personally think COI is important, but I notice that on several other AfDs about men that are currently up for discussion, I have seen editors dismiss COI, and/or they simply do not acknowledge it at all. In this case, I do believe the editor that they are new and didn’t understand the mechanisms. 4) Having a role in organizing gender gap editathons does not preclude notability. I know of a dozen people with Wikipedia pages whose notability is independent/antecedent to their activity as organizers of editathons (myself included). I also know another dozen whose notability arises from their Wikipedia work. However uncomfortable it is for some in the community to negotiate, it’s just another piece of information. In this case I think the question hinges on whether the Belkin collection and The Vancouver Sun piece (which is a feature on her work, and takes the work very seriously). I note that the Wikipedia article about the The Vancouver Sun says it has the largest newsroom in the city, so it is the newspaper of record. The other reviews, and exhibitions are important to establishing the contours of her work, but aren't core to the notability question. I could go either way, the Belkin acquisition is significant, but it might just be a bit TOOSOON.--Theredproject (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I usually agree strongly with your critiques, however... Speaking as a Canadian.. The Belkin is not that big of a deal. It just ain't. Although you are right, they do have a small permanent collection. I did not even know that until now, as you mentioned it. It's a bit moot here though, since the article subject works at the gallery and had her work bought by them. Also, the idea that "in Canada they don’t have University Museums, they often use the word Gallery." Is just hopeful nonsense. Is this a possible Museum/gallery? What about this one, did they mean museum? 104.163.147.121 (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes both WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Multiple, significant, pieces of coverage in independent, reliable, third party sources and her work passes point 4 of the SNG. The arguments against keeping are not policy based (participation in editathons, COI of a !voter, age) or factually mistaken (status of the Belkin gallery). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DO you mean sources like Theory Boner Magazine, used in the article?104.163.147.121 (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG & WP:CREATIVE; sufficient sourcing that establishes stand-alone notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of WP:CREATIVE is met?104.163.147.121 (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. on balance, based on Theredproject's analysis. We usually insist on works, not work in a major collection; we usually expect more than a newspaper article as critical sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i see there is a wparticle on Morris and Helen Belkin Art Gallery, could there be a merge to there with a paragraph or 2 on Bischoff untill she is more widely recognised/ her works are picked up by other galleries/museums/institutions? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added Canadian Art article, Edmonton Journal article, and reference to RBC Artist Development Award, then deleted reference to employment at the Belkin Art Gallery as it doesn't seem relevant to the artist's practice. These additional sources better establish notability. Rossmoss (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This would be a Hey keep anyone actually adding references to an article at an AFD in lieu of other things is commentdable. Otr500 (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2018 (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.