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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brigid Hanrahan (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)

Non-notable artist. Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. 2 of the 3 sources supplied do not mention the subject. Article author has a conflict of interest. Flat Out (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Borderline wikipedia technical general notability but works being held by the NGA I suggest confirms notability. NGA holding meets WP:CREATIVE/WP:ARTIST. Aoziwe (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Delete Duffbeerforme convinced me that two is not several. The 'Collections' section alone appears to meet element #4 of WP:ARTIST. Could be sourced by the articles external link. Gab4gab (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It bothers me that the article cites Vasari, who had absolutely nothing to say about Hanrahan, and then goes into some WP:OR about 'affetti' but provides very few sources that give a critical assessment of the work. I could be persuaded that curation is a form of critical assessment, but there is no indication that there was a solo-show dedicated to the artist; the NGA acquired work. If it's only one drawing, that's not sufficient for me. Mduvekot (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looking at WP:ARTIST#4:

"The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."

a) Nope. b) No evidence of being a substantial part of a significant exhibition. c) Nope. d)No evidence of being represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. NGA holding alone does not meet criteria. (more info on the Home Sweet Home NGA collection found here and here running 11 October 2003 – 18 January 2004)

Wikipedia is not a free webhost for the collection of artist bios for the Northcote-based studio at Arts Project Australia. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2017 (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.