Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agnes Gallus (2nd nomination)

{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|B}}

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Agnes Gallus}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Agnes Gallus}})

Article previously deleted in November 2024 before being recreated in draft form this winter and then moved back into mainspace about two weeks ago, but still not properly sourcing any meaningful claim to passing WP:NARTIST. As always, artists are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage and analysis about them, but this is still based mostly on the exact same primary sources as the first time -- gallery shows sourced to the self-published websites of the galleries that held them rather than GNG-worthy coverage about the shows, a piece about her life and death written by her own daughter, and on and so forth.
The very few new sources that have been added still aren't reliable or GNG-worthy either, however: there's a PDF copy of a book that apparently has one of her drawings in it, where we would need to see media reporting "Agnes Gallus drawing selected for inclusion in book" as a news story to deem her notable for that, and there's her paid-inclusion obituary in the newspaper classifieds.
There's still nothing here that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass GNG on much, much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Possible COI? See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harrietchan. Family? PamD 07:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I've undeleted the previous version to give editors visibility of what has been before so that their thinking can be informed. Schwede66 23:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you for your feedback, @Bearcat. I understand and appreciate Wikipedia’s policies around notability and reliable sourcing, especially in accordance with WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. That said, I would like to respond to a few points regarding the article in question:

:Substantial Revisions: After the article was deleted the first time in November 2024, I significantly revised and expanded the content to better support notability. The second version has undergone considerable editorial improvement thanks to the thoughtful contributions of @buysomeapples, who helped refine its tone and structure.

:New Sources: While I acknowledge that some sources may still be borderline under WP:GNG standards, I’ve actively worked to include more third-party references. Some of these include published catalogues, archived media pieces, and mentions in group exhibition reviews—not just self-published gallery pages. I’m continuing to search for stronger secondary coverage and am open to suggestions on more specific types of sources that would help meet the bar.

:Concerns About Bias: I want to gently raise that the recurring deletion of this article—despite ongoing efforts to improve it—feels disheartening, particularly in light of the many articles on male artists with similar levels of coverage that remain on the platform. While I fully support Wikipedia’s neutrality and sourcing policies, I hope we can also be mindful of how systemic bias can unintentionally influence these decisions. My intention is not to accuse any individual editor but to invite a broader reflection on how we apply notability standards consistently across gender lines.

:I remain committed to improving this article in line with Wikipedia’s guidelines and am grateful for any constructive advice or mentorship on how best to proceed. Harrietcyy (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::Wikipedia does have a gender imbalance but it's guidelines are applied equally to everyone. If you know of any articles about male artists that don't meet guidelines, those should also be improved or deleted. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Very weak keep I accepted the draft because it seemed to meet WP:NARTIST 4 and because Ref 1 seems substantial enough (Saskatchewan: Art and Artists) seemed substantial enough. I won't be bothered if this gets deleted though, it's a borderline case even if it is interesting. BuySomeApples (talk) 09:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::Just to be clear; Saskatchewan Art and Artists is a biographical sketch in a non-WP:GNG-worthy directory self-published by a gallery she was directly affiliated with — and even if we ignore all of those problems and accept it anyway just because it seems "substantial", it still takes a lot more than just one notability-supporting source to establish passage of GNG. So that wasn't a solid notability-locking source to begin with, and wouldn't be enough all by itself regardless. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Fair, NARTIST #4d was the main thing that made up my mind but I can see how it's an edge case. I wouldn't say that it meets GNG at all. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::Citation 1 - Saskatchewan: Art and Artists is connected to two separate major Saskatchewan galleries, the Norman Mackenzie Gallery and the Regina Public Library (Dunlop Gallery) - her work was collected/shown at both of these galleries. These are professional, not personal affiliations. That’s what art galleries do - they publish biographical information about noteworthy artists in their collections. These are highly regarded galleries which makes her inclusion noteworthy.

::Citation 3 - SKNAC - Saskatchewan Network for Art Collectors - is a separate organization. Again, evidence she is recognized by this group as a noteworthy artist in Saskatchewan.

::Citation 6 - the publication of her work in Kate Waterhouse’s book is an example that her work was published in an independent booklet with no personal affiliation.

::Citation 7 - her work was exhibited posthumously by SK Arts - a respected organization. This citation was added to address an earlier query from the previously deleted Wikipedia entry requesting “proof” she did in fact exhibit her work at notable galleries

::Citation 8 - another posthumous exhibit organized by a separate organization, the Saskatchewan Arts Council, again, addressing query re: Citation 7

::Citation 9 - again, addressing query re: her work in permanent collections, in this case the University of Regina - again, a separate organization. Her work is part of the prestigious “Presidents’ Collection” as part of a donation by Morris Schumiatcher, a noteworthy lawyer, art patron and art collector.

::Clearly, there are several notability-supporting sources, as above, re: her work collected and exhibited in several notable Saskatchewan galleries and organizations, namely the Norman Mackenzie Gallery, the Regina Public Gallery, the Saskatchewan Arts Board a.k.a. Saskatchewan Network for Art Collectors, the University of Regina President’s Collection I do not understand how his is “borderline”.

::If the concern is re: personal affiliations, I suggest removing Citation 2. Harrietcyy (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

: