Talk:Elizabeth McGrath (artist)

YYYYYEEEEEAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!!!

You Lazy Wikipedians finally wrote an Article on Liz Mcgrath! Light bless you!-Grahamr

Not lazy. As you can see from the section below adding ANYONE to wikipedia is almost instantly met with objections. Liz needs to be here though, along with the likes of Esao Andrews. In my view an internet based encyclopedia has the ability to feature a wide variety of current information. Unfortunately, there are a considerable number of traditionalists here who want this to look like World Book or Encyclopedia Britannica. If we held solar technology, nano-technology, and gene technology to the same standards those wouldn't be listed here either. BingoDingo (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Needs references

As per Wikipedia:Notability (people), an article about a Creative professional needs to reference published, third-party sources about the subject backing up one of one of the following criteria that pertains to artists:

• The person's work either:
• (a) has been displayed in a significant exhibition or as a monument (current article fails)
• (b) has won significant critical attention (current article fails)
• (c) is represented within the permanent collection of a significant gallery or museum of more than local significance. (current article fails)

If any of these notability citations exists they need to be added to the article or it may be listed for deletion. (I forgot to sign this Fountains of Bryn Mawr 16:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC))

If these criteria were applied to about half the artists listed here they'd be eligible for removed. So, perhaps Fountains of Bryn Mawr needs to define "significant" and "permanent." Using the above stated criteria I have to ask; should Robert Williams be removed? His entry is considerably leaner than this one. Yet, Robert Williams was a key member in the Low Brow or Pop Surreal movement and is the publisher of a magazine devoted to these art forms. WJBean 15:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

For definitions please look up Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. It is all spelled out pretty clearly. As to Robert Williams, yes--- that article would come under scrutiny re:wikipedia policy since it does not have ANY references... so who is saying this stuff? Right under this edit window is the word "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". And yes, I would suspect that more than half the artist on Wikipedia may need to be deleted since this is an Encyclopedia.. not askart.com. Fountains of Bryn Mawr 00:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I did address the notability issue. It IS subjective you know? Then again maybe you don't. Maybe you need to review it yourself. I think we need some arbitration here. WJBean

After supplying a few links highlighting her notability I have removed the tag. Please note. If Elizabeth does not belong here neither does Chet Zar, Josh Agle, or even Robert Williams (artist). WJBean June 20

Update: Reinstated the notability tag after talking to another editor. I think we need arbitration on what constitutes notability to the person who threw the tag. Note: This is an "underground" movement. Though "lowbrow" is shunned as a term by the originator it is widely accepted by artists within the movement. In this regard it's not just a label, but an attitude. Notoriety is not something these artists embrace.

The genre includes street art, sculpture, mix-media, traditional paint on canvas or board, and even digital art. Some of it is cartoonish, some as well executed as anything Dali created.

This is an digital encyclopedia. By it's very nature it can accommodate notable people that a stodgy print publication would reject. My opinion is that these artists are notable and rate entries here. I have been trying to cite these entries. A difficult task considering the very nature of the movement dictates that they shun mainstream recognition. William (Bill) Bean

Please note that the "standard" you reference [[WP:ENCYC]] states, at the very top, "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects some opinions of its authors. Please update the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page." How can this be cited as a standard when the reference itself clearly states that it's not policy? William (Bill) Bean

This is pretty simple... and again it is right under the edit window that I happen to be typing in ---> Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Please read the tag I added. What this article lacks is "reference published, third-party sources about the subject". The page on Notability is "not Wikipedia policy; however, these criteria are considered a fair test of whether a historical or living person merits an article at Wikipedia".

Now.. if the claim for notability here is this person is a notable member of an "underground" movement" that shuns notability then the level of proof would be a published, third-party sources from someone notable in the field stating that this is the case i.e:

...Elizabeth McGrath, an artist who is the member of the well-known movement ####### did blah blah blah the other day....

(published by Mr "Notable Commentator" in "The Notable Publication In This Field"

Again this article does not have that citation and therefore does not meet the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia. The lack of those citations pushes this article into original research. The burden for proving "notability" fell originally on who ever put up this article. Un-sourced material (in this case the whole article) should be removed from Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Verifiability).

I have not nominated this article for Speedy or AFD... I have put up the lowest level (in my view anyway) tag "Notability". And at this point for the reasons stated above this article has still not met that guideline. Fountains of Bryn Mawr 15:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

First, I had hoped three mentions in a publication devoted to the "lowbrow" or "pop surreal" movement would suffice, but they are just mentions. Second, McGrath's biography, short as it is, is autobiographical and therefore does not qualify as third party. Third, her work has been included in over thrity shows. Though she may have submitted that work herself the inclusion was entirely up to the curator, a third party. So this is a conundrum. She is well known from a purely visual point of view, but that does not necessarily mean she has a lot written about her. This is not an unusual situation either; at least not for this movement. Thank you for not nominating the article for speedy (or otherwise) deletion. I will continue my research to satisfy these concerns. William (Bill) Bean