Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rox De Luca
- 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 keep. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Rox De Luca (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)
Regrettably, I'm not seeing evidence that the subject passes WP:GNG/WP:NARTIST. I hope to be proved wrong! IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 10:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Arts, Visual arts, Italy, and Australia. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 10:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment, there seem to be enough reputable sources on the page for notability. Will watch this discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment, please let me know what is missing to make notability.louibu (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment, considerable work has been done on this page since the AfD was posted. Can the discussion be closed and the notice removed? Louibu (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm still not seeing evidence that the subject passes WP:NARTIST, so I won't be withdrawing the nomination. In particular, in my reading, the presented sources don't seem enough to constitute
significant critical attention
, nor is the subject's workrepresented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums
, which seem the two easiest criteria for the subject to pass. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 08:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC) - The discussion will run at least seven days. There is no reason present for a speedy close in either direction. Star Mississippi 13:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, evidence of the subject's work represented within permanent collections of several notable galleries has been added. Carolinephillips (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- What are these notable galleries, and where is the evidence? IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 22:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, evidence of the subject's work represented within permanent collections of several notable galleries has been added. Carolinephillips (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm still not seeing evidence that the subject passes WP:NARTIST, so I won't be withdrawing the nomination. In particular, in my reading, the presented sources don't seem enough to constitute
Source assessment table:
| ||||
| Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| https://www.roxdeluca.com/images/Gleaning_for_plastics_defying_wastefulness_by_Paul_Allatson_2020_.pdf | 
|
 This is a reupload on the subject's website of a blogspot article (WP:SELFPUBLISH).
|
See WP:SELFPUBLISH.
|
✘ No |
| https://www.roxdeluca.com/index.php/artist-cv-curriculum-de-arte | This is the artist's CV.
|
See WP:ABOUTSELF.
|
See WP:ABOUTSELF.
|
✘ No |
| https://theculturetrip.com/pacific/australia/articles/sea-of-plastic-an-artists-quest-to-address-ocean-pollution |
|
|
This is a travel guide website that ran an article on the artist.
|
✔ Yes |
| https://searchthecollection.nga.gov.au/object?keyword=anna%20de%20luca&searchIn=artistOrCulture&searchIn=title&searchIn=medium&uniqueId=127158 |
|
|
Doesn't mention the subject; this is just the link to a painting by the subject's mother.
|
✘ No |
| https://gunyah.blogspot.com/search?q=rox+de+luca | This is a residency report from the subject itself on a blog.
|
See WP:ABOUTSELF.
|
See WP:ABOUTSELF.
|
✘ No |
| https://www.artshub.com.au/news/features/artists-giving-materials-a-new-life-2512531/ |
|
|
~ This is a fairly short mention; the subject is not the main focus of the article, but is quoted, with some commentary on their work. | ~ Partial |
| Millner, Jacqueline; Moore, Catriona (2022). Contemporary art and feminism. New York: Routledge. p. 193. |
|
|
Offline source, accepting in good faith: according to the block quotation, this is a paragraph mention in the book.
|
✔ Yes |
| Brennan, Anne (1 December 1997). "Beyond reason: Jo Darbyshire and Rox De Luca". Eyeline. 35: 22–24. |
|
|
Offline source, accepting in good faith, though the title suggests this may be an interview.
|
✔ Yes |
| https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/bitstream/10453/45398/2/The%20Transcultural%20Edge.pdf |
|
|
A paragraph mention on the subject and their work.
|
✔ Yes |
| Allatson, Paul (1996). "Men and Mettle". Artlink. 16 (1): 24–26. |
|
|
Offline source, accepting in good faith.
|
✔ Yes |
| https://www.gq.com.au/style/trends/the-style-download-15324/image-gallery/a1114634ed7db996d49f80ed40e73536 |
|
|
Very short mention of the subject and one of their works.
|
✔ Yes |
| https://www.projectvortex.org/ | This is a project with which the artist is associated.
|
|
Name doesn't even feature in the source.
|
✘ No |
| https://www.artshub.com.au/news/reviews/review-deakin-university-contemporary-small-sculpture-award-2018-256473-2360787/ |
|
|
Very short, one-sentence mention of the subject and one of their works, which to me constitutes a trivial mention.
|
✘ No |
| https://www.unsw.edu.au/news/2017/07/the-inaugural-ravenswood-australian-womens-art-prize--finalists |
|
|
Just the subject's name is mentioned.
|
✘ No |
| https://www.artshub.com.au/news/sponsored-content/turning-waste-into-art-is-a-community-affair-261135-2368551/ |
|
|
Just the subject's name is mentioned.
|
✘ No |
| https://www.woollahragallery.com.au/Artists/Artist-in-Residence/Rox-de-Luca | This is her biography as an artist-in-residence, almost certainly written by the subject.
|
|
See WP:ABOUTSELF.
|
✘ No |
| https://www.deakin.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/2192259/deakin_university_art_collection_artists.pdf |
|
|
Just the subject's name is mentioned.
|
✘ No |
| This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}. | ||||
- Your mileage may vary, but to me, these sources, assessed together, do not demonstrate that WP:GNG is met. In particular, we have only one "chunky" piece that focuses on the artist, while the rest are either borderline trivial mentions or the artist and their work are discussed, in no more than a paragraph, as a subtopic. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 10:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, the source analysis shows that sufficient sources have been obtained to reach GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)- Keep IMO WP:BASIC is marginally met. X (talk) 13:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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.