Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Sommerhoff

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 speedy delete. by User:Nyttend as WP:G7 (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Sommerhoff

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not convinced that this artist meets the criteria for WP:NARTIST - she is not widely cited or regarded as an important figure by peers, she does not appear to have invented a significant new concept, theory or technique, she has not created a significant work that has been the subject of extensive critical acclaim, and her work is not part of any significant gallery's permanent collection. More sources may be available in German, but I have struggled to find anything beyond gallery listings and social media. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to have been created by someone close to the subject, and without any clear understanding of what Wikipedia is for. Of the three sources in the article, one is written by (apparently) her husband on her own website, one does not mention her at all, and the third has only minimal coverage. This article in the Süddeutsche Zeitung has rather more. I'm afraid that it confirms that she is not notable by our standards: it's a review of a show in her own workshop, she has a painting in an office in Copenhagen and in a doctor's surgery – these are not grounds for inclusion here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article perfect shows what not to do when writing about artists; establish some false equivalency between a very minor artist and a great one by highlighting a shared interest. She's read Goethe (like Runge, Turner and Kandinsky), she's been influenced by Nolde, Chagall, von Jawlensky and Rothko, she listens to Bach, she shows her work at at gallery that named itself after a real museum. Another popular technique is trying to establish that already as a child the subject was some sort of creative genius. It's all completely meaningless. What we (ought to) care about is mature artists with a significant body of work who have been influential themselves. This subject fails that, and every criterion in WP:ARTIST Mduvekot (talk) 11:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is promotional, and the artist is not notable. The claim that an artist is in the "permanent collection" of a commercial gallery is erroneous; having works on sale is not the same as being part of the permanent collection of an art museum. Netherzone (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2017 (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.