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. The keep !votes based on WP:ARTIST part 4 and WP:ANYBIO have been adequately refuted. Stifle (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeannie Pwerle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Edwardx (talk) 09:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep On the basis of criterion 4 of WP:ARTIST. Explanation follows

1. Criterion calls for artists work being "a substantial part of a significant exhibition"
2. So was the "Know my Name" exhibition by the National Gallery of Australia significant? I think yes. My sources to back that up 1 2 3 I could go on, there is a ton of coverage if you search "Know My Name" in google news.
3. And so was her work a substantial part of the exhibition? This is the weakest link in my logic chain, there are between over 250 artists in the exhibition So I think this could be argued either way, but also it was a country's national galleries most expensive exhibition ever (see above). Pwerle is mentioned and got her own page https://knowmyname.nga.gov.au/artists/jeanie-pwerle/
4. So in summary, the national gallery of a country is specifically telling us there are the 250 artists we should know about, it's quite directly telling us there are the notable artists, and she's one of them. I think she passes WP:ARTIST CT55555 (talk) 10:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If there are over 250 artists in the show, then one painting by Pwerle cannot be deemed "a substantial part". And every artist gets their own page at the exhibtion website, so that means nothing. Edwardx (talk) 10:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  When the national gallery of a country puts on an exhibition that is explicitly telling us that women have been underrepresented and this is an attempt to showcase the ones we should know, they are really doing exactly what I think the people who wrote WP:ARTIST intended. All 250 are notable, as I see it. I don't see any sources for your statement that this is "one painting" so if you have more sources about her work, please share them.

  I think we need to consider scale here. If a local gallery said "here's the 250" best artists from our town, I'd accept the counter argument more easily. When the national gallery of a nation with 25 million people says "there are the 250" I think we need to accept that all 250 are probably notable.

  I also don't think that just because they created pages for the artists in the series it should diminish my point. What the gallery did or did not do for others, I think, are arguments to avoid in AfD. CT55555 (talk) 11:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I took a look at how we represent the artists in Know my Name. We have articles on approximately 75 % of the participants. It would be interesting to look at it a bit more closely and see if there is bias in our coverage. Vexations (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment My preference would be to keep the article, but the it has some serious issues. I didn't see any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Galleries who sell Pwerle's work have written about it, but that does not establish notability because it is not independent coverage. The collections listed appear to fail verification. A commercial art gallery that has some works by an artist in stock is not a collection. The NGA would be significant, but fails verification. I cannot confirm that they bought any work by Pwerle. Notability here hinges on whether qualified professionals (not us) find the work somehow important ot significant. I am very sympathetic to CT55555's argument that recognition by the NGA ought to suffice. I'd like to see better sources. Are there no reviews? That would really help.

Motivated by your comment, I looked into her exhibiting in the places she mentioned. I got here http://holmesacourtgallery.com.au/article/angelina-pwerle Now is "Angelina Pwerle" and "Jeannie Pwerle" both of Utopia the same person? I see she goes by at least four names and Jeanie does sound like a contraction of Angelina, so I'm saying yes. i.e. I think the claim is verifiable. But also is it a commercial gallery? I think it is, but seems like it also houses a collection, but seems maybe her art was not in it permanently. This is obviously frustrating the way we live in a world where Aboriginal women in Australia have been documented to be excluded from media, and we're applying the exact same standard to her as everyone else. This is a bigger conversation than this AfD, but I think Wikipedia also does encourage common sense and there is literally an agreed philosophy that we can "ignore all rules" if they have negative consequences. What is a worse consequence that upholding systemic bias, systems of oppression. Should we ignore that because it's a bigger, longer term problem? I hope not. I plea to anyone reading this to vote, as Wikipedia encourages, using common sense, the spirit of the rules and the spirit of "we are here to build an encyclopedia" CT55555 (talk) 12:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC) My comment was framed with a mistaken starting assumption, as corrected below, now striking out. CT55555 (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CT55555, Angelina Pwerle is a different artist. She was born in 1946 in Utopia. We have an article on her. Netherzone (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Here is confirmation that the National Gallery of Australia bought one of Pwerle's works (an untitled woodcut) in 1990. I'll try and confirm this at the library tomorrow, but I believe she has a biographical entry in the book Aboriginal Artists Dictionary of Biographies by Margo Birnberg and Janusz Kreczmanski. --Canley (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:ARTIST states: "The person's work (or works) has: ... (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Several means three or more, and this being a print does not help. Edwardx (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Canley (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Canley (talk) 11:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the basis her work is in three collections including the National Gallery of Australia. Curiocurio (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Switching vote to Delete based on comments by Edwardx and Netherzone. One collection is not enough to satisfty WP:NARTIST 4(d), even if it is the national gallery. Furthermore, there is no current basis for passing WP:GNG as the references are nearly all gallery sources. Curiocurio (talk)

@Curiocurio I wonder if you noted that, Netherzone, just voted to keep? CT55555 (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment NARTIST 4(d) states that these need to be "notable galleries or museums". Mbantua Gallery is a commerical gallery that sells her work. As for the Holmes à Court Collection (which in itself is at best marginally notable), all we have is a claim on a CV page from japingkaaboriginalart.com, another commercial gallery that sells her work. Sorry, but this is a clear 4d fail. Edwardx (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep NARTIST 4(d) Theredproject (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment See my comment for the Keep vote above. Edwardx (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Aboriginal Artists Dictionary of Biographies meets ANYBIO Theredproject (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment regarding the "collections" - Two of the "collections" are definitely not notable permanent museum collections, the article is in error (I'll correct that after this post). The Mbantua Gallery is not a museum it is a commercial sales gallery, and the item supposedly in their collection has been sold by the gallery. See: [1]. The Holmes a Court Gallery is also a commercial sales gallery, not a museum, the citation in the article goes to a "Add to Cart, How to Buy" page.[2]. So it appears that these galleries show her work, but that fact does not contribute to notability. The National Gallery of Australia collection can be verified, but one collection is not enough to put her over the bar of WP:NARTIST. Courtesy pings to Curiocurio, CT55555, Theredproject about the collections. I'm holding off on !voting to see if Canley was able to find her in the Aboriginal Artists Dictionary of Biographies, if so she would pass WP:ANYBIO Netherzone (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment She does have an entry in Aboriginal Artists Dictionary of Biographies, but the bio is pretty short (about 32 words). The entry does mention that Pwerle was one of 46 featured artists in the Meeting Place five-year travelling exhibition (confirmed on the back of the poster) which seems pretty significant (it was a major exhibition featured during the International Council of Museums (ICOM) conference in Melbourne). --Canley (talk) 03:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I remain keep for the reasons I made in my first comment (i.e. the national gallery saying she is one of their top 250). CT55555 (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - based on the short entry in Aboriginal Artists Dictionary of Biographies, she meets WP:ANYBIO criterion #3. That combined with the fact she is in the National Gallery collection, I think the article should be retained. Netherzone (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Funny how people clutch at straws to try keep worthy pursuits like art and academia went there is no hint of passing GNG and rabidly attack less highbrow activities like sport even when there is a clear verified passing of a SNG. No that dictionary is not the "country's standard national biographical dictionary", no pass of ANYBIO #2. 32 words is not a GNG pass. ARTIST 4d is not passed by being sold in shops. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2022 (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.