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. Killiondude (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Dunlop

[edit]

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

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. References provided are either mentions-in-passing or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations. Edwardx (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 23:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 23:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 23:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 23:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 23:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 23:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article refs are weak and do not establish notability. A search turns up nothing of interest. Non-notable vanity page.104.163.153.162 (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just needs work per our editing policy. There's more material out there including Who's Who in Art . Andrew D. (talk) 12:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Who in Art looks like a sketchy source. Their web site has a submission form. Thjey have one editor who compiles the entire book. Looks like a vanity press or vanity business, essentially. Just saying.198.58.161.137 (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The work seems quite respectable and states clearly that "entries are entirely on merit as they have been since the first edition almost ninety years ago". Andrew D. (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...and Saatchi Art, Les expositions de l'année au Canada / The Year's Exhibitions in Canada 1983, Galleryheinzel. Perhaps I am insufficiently metropolitan but where I am from, exhibiting at Sabhal Mor Ostaig would be considered of rather more worth than some of the trivia that populates our BLPs. Ben Mac Dui 19:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saatchi art is a wiki-style unreliable reference. Sabhal Mòr Ostaig is a university, which is an easy/low-quality exhibition.104.163.150.32 (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am genuinely attempting to learn something useful here. Can you say which you think are the more prestigious galleries for an artist working in the Highlands beyond Inverness Museum and Art Gallery and say Kilmorack in Beauly? Ben Mac Dui 10:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No idea on the galleries. I was merely pointing out that Sabhal Mor Ostaig is not a gallery but rather a school whose main business seems to be Gaelic instruction. (Cool language!) I see zero hits for any sort of gallery there when I search. It follows that a school of the Gaelic language is probably not a particularly selective or notable venue for an art exhibition. Notable venues have professional curatorial staff, dedicated exhibition space, publications and of course, a web site.198.58.161.137 (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Followup. I looked at the source for that show, and it is just the event announcement. Have a look at WP:RS. You can have tea with the Queen every Tuesday at 3PM, but unless someone write about it in reliable sources and in depth, it is not of any value to establish notability. So Sabhal Mor Ostaig doesn't mean anything here for notability.198.58.161.137 (talk) 10:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't done a good search for potential sources, so I'm not giving my Keep/Delete yet, but the current sources are insufficient to establish notability. We have a number of commercial galleries, cottishartpaintings.co.uk, gullaneartgallery.co.uk, panterandhall.com, and a "a unique tool that enables you to create beautiful 3D showcases of your art to impress art lovers and collectors", kunstmatrix.com. The Scotsman would have been an excellent source, if the article had been about our subject. The piece in ross-shirejournal.co.uk is the only article that approaches something like critical attention, but it is clear from the article itself that the award, despite the fact that the Ross-Shire journal calls it a "a prestigious prize", the Art Centre Kelty, Bespoke Framing Award is in fact a very minor award. WP:ARTISTS requires "significant critical attention", and I don't see that (yet). Mduvekot (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of the qulity, reliable indepth sources needed to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two reviews in The Scotsman; the 2015 review features her work. Notable also for election by her peers to run two of Scotland’s five Arts organisations; she then co-founded another. A long list of exhibitions. Major holding of works in Britain’s largest corporate arts collection - arguably, notableD Holly (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC) — D Holly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see two reviews in the Scotsman; there is only one. All it says is "Alison Dunlop also uses her medium beautifully in Wave and Wave-Study. In both, an inverted arc of transparent blue hovers above a blue horizon. This is essential watercolour. She could not create such a luminous image in any other medium." Mduvekot (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correction. There are at least two: https://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/culture/art/art-reviews-rsw-william-crosbie-1-3670170 is another one, which is equally brief. There appears to be some material to base an article on, even if the artist has not received significant critical attention. Until we see something resembling that, Delete, with no prejudice to recreation once we see significant coverage. Mduvekot (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have spent quite some time looking for reliable sources and reviews. She has had paintings included in several exhibitions in Scotland, some of which accept works through open submission. These exhibitions have been written about in the Scotsman and there are instances where her work gets a brief mention in these reviews, along with multiple other artists. She has had a few roles within artistic organisations, but I couldn't find announcements or other material documenting this, even on sites published by these organisations. For example, a companies house listing has been relied upon to show she was registered as a director. There have been multiple references added to the article where she is not mentioned or where the source cannot be checked. The Ross-shire Journal article from 2015 is the only independent source that I could see that covers her and her work in any depth. I can't see that notability has been achieved if judged against WP:ARTIST. Worse than that, the activity around this article really smacks of undeclared paid-for editing. Drchriswilliams (talk) 15:03, 17 January 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.