Talk:Ophelia Gordon Bell

Suggestion for deletion

I suggest this artist does not meet wikipedia's notability standards. The main source is her own family's commercial website, and there is no evidence provided for why she is important. Picstloup (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

This article should not be deleted. As it makes clear, her works are on public display, and in public collections in at least two countries. . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

"her works are on public display ... in at least two countries" - that's setting the bar really low. Picstloup (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It depends on the countries and the museums, Picstloup. Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa is the national museum and art gallery of New Zealand, clearly a significant museum, and the Royal Academy of Arts is also extremely significant. Clear indicia of notability. Montanabw^(talk) 22:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The bar is WP:ARTIST, which she easily clears. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't support deletion per WP:ARTIST. Selection of work for a national museum is both an honour and highly significant. Her work is as well in in public collections and on display.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)(

Support. The work is in the New Zealand gallery because of the subject, not the artist. Around 1000 artists every year show at the Royal Academy Summer Exhibition, as OGB did: not all of them are "notable" or "significant". 4stones (talk) 10:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Not true. Such a statement implies anyone could create an art work of Hillary and no matter its quality be included in a museum collection which is never the case. The art work and its quality would have been considered.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC))

Agree with your assessment Littleolive oil and also note that the piece was commissioned. One does not hire someone to create a piece if they are unproven or unlikely to be up to the task of creating same. SusunW (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Notable does not mean what you apparently think it does Picstloup. It requires verifiable mention over time that attention has been paid to the subject. You don't determine she is notable. The coverage in reliable sources over time does. Regardless of whether she meets "WP:Artist", she meets GNG. The most detailed information may well come from her family's website, but there are plenty of sources to back that up. I get over 20 detailed documents out of a google search listing over 300,000 articles. She clearly is notable by Wikipedia's standards. SusunW (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

"the bar is WP:ARTIST which she easily clears", says pigsonthewing. Not if you read the 4 criteria, she doesn't - the first three clearly not; it's fractionally closer with regard to 4 (d): the artist should be "represented within the permanent collections of several [my emphasis] notable galleries or museums". She's clearly in the permanent collection of the New Zealand museum, but of no other notable ones. Although excellent work has been done finding new references to make her look notable, it's apparent that almost all of them are either from her local papers rather than national/international sources (eg the RA or the Fine Art Society), or in pieces about her husband, or from her family's commercial gallery in Grasmere (probably a very nice gallery, but not exactly ... notable). SusunW is quite right to point out that neither she nor I determines notability. Looking at WP:GNG, I think it's very doubtful she meets that either, as the references cited do not show that she has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject [my emphases]" - the wording in recent articles about her in, for example, her local papers Lakes Culture and the Westmorland Gazette, is demonstrably lifted directly from the press release on her family's commercial website. Picstloup (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Please do not twist my words. "Significant coverage" implies a depth of coverage, not length. A single line in multiple reliable sources confirming a notable contribution can carry far more weight than reams of paper which build empty fame. As a single example, Gordon Bell created a commissioned bust of Sir Edmund Hillary. [1]. The bust is part of the permanent collection of Te Papa Museum in New Zealand [2] The bust has been featured in tributes to Hillary [3] She had multiple showings at the Royal Society of Arts as well as the Royal Glasgow Institute. [4] In itself, enough to establish notability. No where in Notability guides does it state that local sources are inadmissable. Nowhere does it state that international or even national notability is required. Though in this case, her notability is indeed international. Nowhere does it state that her notability is diminished because she is mentioned in works about her spouse or her son, who are also notable. Instead, it confirms that she IS notable, otherwise, she would not be brought up at all. And finally, notability does not require that the sources be cited but simply that they exist. In this case, multiple sources have been cited. SusunW (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I think perhaps we need to calm down a little and remember to assume good faith, and certainly not accuse me of twisting your words. I genuinely believe this artist does not meet either WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. To me, the article does not show that she does. The art market agrees with me - at an auction in Newcastle last month, two of her sculptures, comparable in size and style to the one of Sir Edmund Hillary, sold for just £120 and £80 (roughly US$190 and US$125)[5]. You say she had "multiple showings at the Royal Society of Arts"; please can you provide a reference for this as it would be significant (I am a Fellow of the RSA, and I can't find anything about her showing there, although much of our archive is not online). As pointed out by 4stones, 1000s of people show in the Royal Academy and the Royal Scottish Academy annual exhibitions: it is not enough to get them an entry. The bust of Sir Edmund Hillary is clearly notable because of its subject, not its artist - and the bust was not, as you incorrectly state, commissioned, but made by her after she was, to quote her gallery website, "inspired to make a model head of [Hillary]". If the quality was so high, why are none of her other many portrait sculptures in public collections, and only sell for peanuts when they reach the open market? I did not say local sources are inadmissable, I merely pointed out that the ones cited were not necessarily reliable as demonstrably based on a non-independent source - and I made no mention of "length" at all, so I am unclear what you mean by that. And although I admire her son Julian's work (much more than her husband's), he does not have a wikipedia entry for her to be mentioned on (as yet - I may remedy that, as he probably does qualify under GNG, and just possibly under WP:ARTIST as well). Best wishes Picstloup (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:CALMDOWN. And any fool can see where you twisted Susan's words. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for you comment. I was unaware of the guidelines on the phrase "calm down" and apologise if it is not deemed acceptable. I still fail to see how I twisted Susun [sic, not Susan]'s words, but apologise again if that was the unintended effect of my writing. While you are there, pigsonthewing, perhaps you can explain how OGB easily clears the WP:ARTIST bar? Thanks Picstloup (talk) 23:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

You may be confusing fame or general notability with Wikipedia notability. There is much on Wikipedia that is not well known and especially not "famous", but still has deserved an article per the standards set here. Just a thought.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC))

I am not remotely uncalm, Picstloup on the other hand, bolding and emphasizing, you seem to be "yelling" and trying to persuade with force. I provided outside sources for every statement I made. I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that your repeated claim and bolding of "received significant coverage" must refer to length of article, since you had already claimed that she was only mentioned in "pieces about her husband" and there had been multiple articles about her cited both in the talk page and in the article. Now you are quoting from the same gallery site you previously claimed was unreliable as proof of your statements. I am confused by your remarks and insistence on your POV. SusunW (talk) 04:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Picstloup, you now have a 4 to 1 consensus against you. Please drop the stick and let it go. Your "he does not have a wikipedia entry for her to be mentioned on" comment is, frankly, sexist. So please take whatever problem you have elsewhere. This debate is closed. Montanabw^(talk) 04:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Montanabw you seem to be the one with the problem, firstly a complete inability to assume good will, and secondly an inability to count, as the vote against Picstloup was 4-2, a majority, but hardly a consensus, and I agree with picstloup that the subject does not clear the various hurdles for notability, and nobody seems able to show how she does, so that makes it 4-3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.38.103.26 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 26 November 2015‎

The artist is notable per Wikipedia as has been pointed out in multiple cmts above. She doesn't have to be De Vinci to have a WP article. And frankly, to have work in a national museum is a very big deal and that alone is notable. I agree per general agreement on this page its time to move on. Further pushing on this given the agreement here becomes tendentious.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)(

As you say *Littleoliveoil, she doesn´t have to be a Leonardo to have an entry, but, as has also been said, WP:ARTIST specifically states that an artist´s work should be in ¨several¨ notable galleries or museums, and she appears to be represented in only one. 83.38.103.26 (talk) 07:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Per ANYBIO "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria". It is not required that she meet Artist. SusunW (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)