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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iris Scott (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)

Delete as nominator While this artist has received some media attention for her novelty, she fails to meet notability standards established by WP:ARTIST. If Scott invented the concept of finger-painting, I would reconsider, but as it stands now, she is not notable. KidAd (talk) 00:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - While I agree that the subject does not meet WP:ARTIST, the coverage she has received does meet WP:GNG, which is enough to establish notability. Jmertel23 (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there is a boatload of coverage in reliable news sources from many reliable sources between 2017 and 2019. GNG is clearly met. The fact that the media sometimes promotes banal artists is a media problem, not a notability problem.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete Changing to delete. I am persuaded that although there is coverage, it is most cases not in depth, and more imporantly it is not critical coverage of her. If she is an artist, then we need some critical coverage and not just puff pieces about how cool finger painting is.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Citations meet WP:GNG, but article needs cleaning up. Changing vote to Delete. After exploring the sources in depth, they don't work in establishing notability. Primary sources from art blogs/magazines and her own site, a Forbes puff piece written by a "contributor" instead of a staff writer, and no content in the USA Today article. American Art Collector link is dead. All citations are dated March 2019, meaning the shock value of her work has long since worn off. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although not necessarily meeting a more specific notability criteria ie. WP:CREATIVE, there is plenty of coverage for Scott to meet WP:BASIC. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Subject easily passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, as seen in USA Today here and WCBS-TV here. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 06:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The WCBS piece is a whopping two minutes long and is basically the average puff material saved for the very end of a newscast. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me just voice my complete disgust with stating, in Wikipedia's voice "best known for pioneering finger painting to achieve­­ media recognition and commercial success". The sources are terrible: a Forbes "contributor", a 5 photo slideshow without commentary, one dead link, amazon.com (REALLY?), an editor called wenn.com, a press release, a blog, her gallery. Delete. Vexations (talk) 12:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I would be very happy to see this artist deleted, but a news search turns up many good sources. For example Smithsonian Magazine has this item, and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation did a ten minute interview. Here is a decently sized NYPOST article. And here is a 13 minute interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and an article on CBS New York. This is one of those situations where following our notability guidelines means we have to include gimmick artists who have little artistic originality, but have amassed SIGCOV. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  ThatMontrealIP, I don't think we have to rigidly follow some rule that says, that anything that CBS or the CBC or ABC covers is automatically notable. To me, what matters for artists is serious critical attention by professional critics, art historians etc. The kind of coverage Scott has received belongs in the human interest section, it is not serious criticism. I suppose that just means that WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but those paintings make me want to rip my eyeballs out. I do recognize that we have, on occasion, accepted a newpaper's gift guide as a reliable source, just because it appeared in the New York Times, and we apparently have a "rule" that says that anything that gets written about there is somehow notable. If we accept that, then there's no need to discuss anything anymore. All we have to do is count sources, and see how many of them are in the (soon to be published) list of pre-approved sources. I think that's a terrible idea, but I am possibly not aligned with the consensus of the editing community here. Vexations (talk) 02:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Vexations: I concur with you on the eyeballs. There is perhaps an argument that could be made here that she should not be included as there has been no critical coverage of her work. The coverage has just been "hey, cool!" I Might be bending towards delete, although we have kept many terrible artists in AFD discussion based on uncritical coverage.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  ThatMontrealIP, yeah, I'm really torn. Our own judgements should not play a role in deciding to keep or delete. And often, keeping some distance from the subject (disliking the work of artists we discuss) is beneficial. I have done a lot of work on Florine Stettheimer for example, whose paintings I actually don't like very much, but I've never written about artists who I really like. One approach I like is to look at the sources, see if we can write an article based on (only) those sources. So in Scott's case, the USA today article [1] cited by User:Nnadigoodluck as evidence of easily passing WP:GNG is completely useless, because it's only text is "A finger painting creation by Brooklyn-based artist Iris Scott", "Shake it off!", "A deer peeks through fall foliage.", "Take me home country road? Iris Scott with her painting "Whispering Wheat."", "Iris Scott stands in front of "Jake the Giant." The canvas is 128" wide." You cannot write an article based on that source, so it should be dismissed. Then there's Cindy Hsu's reporting, [2] who during her reporting, gets to experience some fingerpainting herself. Meilan Solly's piece for Smithsonian magazine is a bit harder to dismiss as trivial. Most of the sources seem to be written in response to a single exhibition at Filo Sofi arts, which was supposed to run from May 4 to June 7, but is still listed on the Gallery's website. You can apparently still visit it, but by appointment only. None of this seems to amount to sustained coverage. I question the claims about the prices her work commands (claims vary from $30,000 to $45,000). Did the show sell? Or is she selling “Hand Embellished” work [3] to tourists on the High Line? Vexations (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Vexations You have moved me to the "D*lete" column.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete an analysis of the sources makes it questionable this actually passes GNG, and nothing even close to passing the notability guidelines for artists. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Vexations. The sourcing is much thinner than it originally appears. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2019 (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.