Talk:Doris Downes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

References[edit]

Added reference already.Editstat7 20:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)editstat7 (removed html links b/c they were added to article page.[reply]

references have been found to her exhibitions in Spanish and American "Cultural" reviews. I am a newbie so please forgive me. Here are references I have found to confirm and expand wiki page.

http://www.e-barcelona.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=754

http://www.elmundo.es/papel/2003/05/18/cultura/1397774.html

http://www.circulodelarte.com/artistas/artistas_detalle.php?lang=es&ID=405

http://www.hamptons.com/detail.ihtml?id=591&apid=1009&sid=3&cid=52&arc=1

publications: http://eatonart.net/publications_americanfloral.html


Jordan23 21:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)jordan23[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (people) states that "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". None of what you supplied is establishing Notability since gallery sales and bio's are not "intellectually independent" or "independent of the subject" and the art reviews in spanish do not state that Doris Downes is notable in some way... they just review her work. Being good at what you do is not Notability. You may want to have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (people) to see if you can find something that meets wikipedia's standards. 69.72.2.72 19:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creative professionals[edit]

Downes is included in carefully curated shows, American Florals, with the most recognized names in American Floral Painting. Under the notable category of 'Special Cases', she falls within Creative Professionals The person's work either (a) has been displayed in a significant exhibition...(b) has won significant critical attention, or (c) is represented within the permanent collection of a significant gallery or museum of more than local significance. Jordan23 18:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)jordan23[reply]

Being included in a juried show with "recognized names" does not make her notable. It would depend on what the show in question is and that would have to be cited. The shortness of her career (started in 2001) and the lack of any other reference other than commercial gallery ones, which are by definition not an independent source, seems to point to her not being a notable fine artist. There is some information pointing to her being a notable art director but she seems to be retired. 69.72.2.72 04:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In studying the exhibition a publication about an exhibition curated as a survey of American Flower painting which includes American floral painters for over a century. I get the impression that her painting career was a long-time passion because it takes decades to perfect that level of artistic skill. artists who work in commercial fields such as Willem DeKooning and many others I would not be too sure that Downes is retired from a design career, but putting the art first and hanging onto a bit of the 'day job'. However, this is speculative. I am satisfied that this meets requirements. an image should be included in the template. Editstat7 15:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)editstat7[reply]

I agree, and would like to see an image of the artist or an emblematic artwork on the page. This seems NPOV -perhaps expand in two areas including Art Director to cover both careers.

Also, good material about her husband, Robert Hughes, but not relevant to the artist and article as it stands.Jordan23 17:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Jordan23[reply]

I don't see a link to any 'juried shows'. URL's go to solo or 'curated' shows and there is a big difference. Curated shows are for artists (alive or deceased)organized by a curator, def. the person in charge of a museum, art collection, etc. There is a big difference. Editstat7 21:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)editstat7[reply]

Notability[edit]

After looking over the article I have restored the NOTABILITY tag. Please read the tag closly... "The best way to address this concern is to reference published, third-party sources about the subject. If notability cannot be established, the article is more likely to be considered for deletion," So for the reference (External Links) are to a gallery show review in spanish, a second spanish review of the same gallery show, a commercial website site selling the artist work, a commercial exhibit (Spanierman Gallery, LLC) that includes the artists work, and another commercial exhibit (Eaton Fine Art) and catalog that includes the artists work. All are links to commercial shows, not a "Curated... museum, art collection, etc.". A commercial gallery is in no way an independent or third-party source and a review is normal for any artist. The task here is to establish whether this is a notable artist. None of the links established notability, they simply show an artist who is "in the market". If no further links are added that meet Wikipedia's standards re:Notability I will probably nominate this article for deletion. Fountains of Bryn Mawr 20:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the links are not satisfactory and there are many more that are not included which can be expanded. The guidelines for artists in the world of collectors as they conduct business and trends break rules of tradition. Perhaps guidelines should be modified because the market has become an entity of it's own with notability being established in niche areas. This artist is considered talented, collectible, and notable in a broad range of work. There was an agreement to eliminate the tag. Jordan23 06:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)jordan23[reply]

It is doubtful that this is a notable Art Director since, again, there is little 3rd party reference as to Notability (a Wikipedia requirement). The same goes for what has been put forward for this person’s art career. You need to keep in mind that this is an Encyclopedia... not an art directory (such as Askart.com). As such there is a much higher threshold for being included. As to any "agreement", please read Wikipedia guidelines re: sock puppets. Fountains of Bryn Mawr 14:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry, professional citation is not in its self notability. Wikipedia has standards for notability discussed above. Wikipedia is not a professional directory. Since no extra notability has been added after two weeks I have nominated this page for AfD discussion. Fountains of Bryn Mawr 17:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page is marked 'No Consensus' . The notability tag was restored by Fountains of Bryn Mawr, again. It appears that the majority vote favors this page as notable with majority keeps and VWD's. Annlanding 18:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Ann Landing[reply]
In response to Fountains of Bryn Mawr. I stand to correct your statement , "All are links to commercial shows, not a "Curated... museum, art collection, etc.". By simply scratching the surface, one would notice that this response is in error. For example, the Floral Exhibition and accompanying exhibition at the Eaton Art Gallery was curated by Ms. Ella Foshay. Here is her bio: Ms. Foshay is a distinguished American Art Historian and author who teaches art history at Columbia University. She is the former Curator of the New York Historical Society, NewYork, New York and the author of "John James Audubon" published in 1997 by Harry N. Abrams and many other important books on American Art. http://www.artservices2000.com/audlec.html.
The intro to Eaton Fine Art's website states "Eaton Fine Art is a commercial fine art gallery". This is not a "permanent collection" by definition. Furthermore the publication "American Floral:A Survey" being cited contains several artist being represented by Eaton Fine Art. This is not an independent third party source, it is a promotional piece published by this commercial gallery. The vote on notability was split.. and even those who did vote too keep stated that the page does not have proper notability citations. Those have to be added to keep this page from being considered for deletion. Fountains of Bryn Mawr 02:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you have requested many, many times that this article be expanded, and when it is expanded by several members, you delete the information (?) Wikipedia articles are supposed to be objective and you are wasting other editors time, and mine too. (An editorial tip- the word 'too', means 'also'. : )Annlanding 15:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Annlanding[reply]

C'mon. What her grandson jenkins the third is doing is irrelevant. This is not a NPOV issue, but not-notable (as previously tagged but tag removed without article improvement) and also most of the your addtional content is without citation. ROxBo 15:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reference to a grandson jenkins(?) This article is one of many that I am working to expand. I don't see information about you on your user page and that makes it unclear about your motivations in editing pages for wikipedia. Annlanding 16:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)Annlanding[reply]

Repeated deletion of content[edit]

There is a history of deletion of large parts of the above discussion, coming from different user names. Yet the same passages are deleted, it would seem, in order to spin the history of the discussion. A continuation of vandalism will merit the attention of an administrator. JNW (talk) 02:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A review of edits to this page, as well as to the article, gives the impression that one editor has adopted various user names, in order to argue for notability. The issue of notability is a valid one, and may or may not have been answered. But it needs to be addressed in a fair and legitimate manner, not by a continuous deletion of tags and blanking of discussion on this page. JNW (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since one of the editors vandalizing this talk page (User:Jordan23) is also the editor who created this article, it points to this article being a promotional piece, probably by a single editor with several sockpuppets/meatpuppets. I will probably take this article back to AfD some time soon noting these points and the fact that no new notability has been added. It is really up to the editor creating an article to supply notability/encyclopediacy from the start. It is obvious this aint gonna happen and good faith has gone out the window. The editors vandalizing this talk page should also probably be baned from Wikipedia. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 05:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a request to the creator of the page to make adjustments/clean up. Otherwise, I will do so. This page has the requirements and links for citable sources (second and third party) but is not formatted correctly. This should resolve above issues.Annlanding (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Annlanding[reply]
I have restored the NOTABILITY tag. There are still absolutely no references that support required notability. Annlanding please note: removal of discussion page content (such as you just did here[1])is just the sort of conduct that will receive negative administrator attention. I would highly recommend you cease such activities. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References 2[edit]

Anyone tried doing a google search? There are plenty of mentions - NY Times, Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, Independent, Guardian for starters. Some are trivial, but others bring her more into focus. They're mainly because of Robert Hughes to whom she is married, but she played a key part in his recovery after a bad road accident, and that has given her particular attention. It is odd that the thing the sources highlight is absent altogether from the article at the moment. The thing to do is search the sources, then write the article—not vice versa. Tyrenius (talk) 04:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, anyone not sure how to do inline citations (references), the guide is at: Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. Tyrenius (talk) 04:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doris Downes re:Robert Hughes bad road accident seems to come under People notable only for one event and therefore may not meet Wikipedias guideline on this (see: WP:BIO1E and WP:NOT#NEWS). re: marriage to Robert Hughes, notability is not transferable. The general lack of these items being in the article may simply be because they are irrelevant. The problem is this article list nothing relevant re: notability, i.e. why is this person in Wikipedia? Its a sentence along the lines of "Doris Downes is a ______ known for __________." Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest the article is written using all the sources and see what shape it's in then. Tyrenius (talk) 07:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added citations and could not find archival information on awards because most of those award organizations do not give access to archives for any number of reasons (?). Added reviews from shows and more about the couple- merged info on family from Hughes site.Annlanding (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Annlanding[reply]
I've removed a ref to Goya as it does not substantiate the dedication, so is not relevant.Tyrenius (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doing reference for my own book here in the New York Public Library, copy of "Goya" in my hands. Says: "For Doris With All my Love" and first sentence of acknowledgment: "The Person to whom I owe most in writing this book is Doris Downes, who gave me the strength to do it after a near-fatal car crash.....and so on". Annlanding (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Annlanding[reply]
I'm not disputing that's what's in the book, just that the online ref supplied is no good to substantiate that, as it doesn't mention the dedication. You need to do a ref to the print book with author, publisher, ISBN, page no. or whatever. Please read User_talk:Annlanding#Guide_to_referencing. Tyrenius (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. I'll change that- also think the lead is too short. Am working on a bio of another art-related person. Can I send to you after sandboxing? thanksAnnlanding (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Annlanding[reply]

Dropping in two cents as to the current edits. The article intro as of [2] has a major problem in that it does not conform to Wikipedia:Lead section re: "(explain) why the subject is interesting or notable". All it says is that the subject is a painter and that the subject helped a notable person in a single incident. Neither supports notability since Wikipedia is not a directory of artists and Wikipedia notability does not cover people notable only for one event. Much more work needed. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the lead section should be a summary of content that exists in the main article. It should not be written as an introduction. Tyrenius (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly right and points to the obvious problem, the article supplies no notability, therefore the lead doesn't summarize it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of referenced material[edit]

Material that is referenced from a reliable source should not be deleted, just because an editor doesn't like it. See WP:NNC. Tyrenius (talk) 07:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should be encyclopedic content. That her father taught her how to draw is trivia. If you disagree please demonstrate how this is relevant. Wikipedia is open to editing, importnat to acknowledge. One must resist article-tending, my friend.ROxBo (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NNC:
Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content
Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles ... The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines; instead, article content is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policy requiring Verifiability and the guidelines covering the use of reliable sources
I fail to see how you can assert that where, how and when an artist learnt to draw is not relevant to an article about the artist. Tyrenius (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"If you disagree please demonstrate how this is relevant". I ask once again. A rhetorical question us not an answer. Also please stop dropping guidelines everywhere, just tedious. (Yes, yes, we all bide by them, but yes, contantly bracketing them is WP:tedious.) Perhaps you can illustrate why this fact is worth including and referencing, any more than what her favourite colour is (colour is also important for artists, yes I admit, but is DD's favourite colour important/notable?).ROxBo (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't made a rhetorical question: I've made a statement. I will say it again more simply: where, how and when an artist learnt to draw is relevant in an article about that artist. I draw attention to guidelines, because your actions and comments suggest you may not be familiar with some of them, instead editing according to your own ideas of how it should be done. Tyrenius (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revised throughout[edit]

I've been through the text and the references (apart from two not online), and revised the article throughout. If there are any issues, please do not remove referenced material, but discuss on the talk page so a consensus can be reached. Leaving edit summaries is not adequate for this. I have removed the notability tag, as notability is demonstrated. Tyrenius (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are a bit odd. How is a notability tag removed usually? By consensus? oh yeah..."discuss on the talk page so a consensus can be reached. Leaving edit summaries is not dequate " - you said this too. Sometimes these commercial value entries are very difficult.ROxBo (talk) 12:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please leave out the personal remarks. They are not appreciated. I don't know what you mean by "commercial value entries". A notability tag is placed when someone thinks an article might not meet notability requirements, but isn't at the stage to propose for AfD, so gives others a chance to fix it. Read what it says on Template:Notability, namely: "expand or rewrite the article to establish its notability. The best way to address this concern is to reference published, third-party sources about the subject." That's what I've done, so I've removed the tag, as its purpose has been fulfilled. Tyrenius (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You did not seek consensus for your major edit. It would appear by this action that as long as your own ideas of how it should be done are fulfilled it is ok, and no one should alter it without your consensus - is this usually granted??. You like consensus, so long as it does not apply to your actions?? Hmph.ROxBo (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you endorsed the notability tag to "expand or rewrite the article to establish its notability. The best way to address this concern is to reference published, third-party sources about the subject."? I have worked with that, so I don't see what you are complaining about. You seem also to be confusing Consensus with consent. I would like to remind you that I have specifically referred to the removal of referenced material. Tyrenius (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinstated a notability|biographies tag. I do not see what was accomplished by simply re-arranging and extensively quoting sources that were found lacking in the original AfD discussion. There is still nothing here that would meet WP:BIO. The reviews of her work in Spanish publications seem to be trivial coverage and non-independent of the subject (reviews of exhibitions are generated by sending that reviewer a press release to "please come review me"... therefore brought to the reviewers attention for a purpose, not generated by an intellectually independent process) (Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria).Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it. It's only use is to ask for expansion and/or references to be added. It's not for an ongoing protest against the article. The Spanish articles take her work seriously, and they're independent of the subject, because they are editorial content in a newspaper. Your statements otherwise as to what they "seem" are purely conjecture for which you provide no proof, i.e. WP:OR. There's sufficent coverage to satisfy WP:BIO. If you think it doesn't, then you should take it to AfD. However, you might like to note that even after the first AfD was relisted for more discussion, the article still had no inline references[3] and also no mention of, for example, the New York Times article, where she features prominently.[4] Coverage does not have to be exclusive. Tyrenius (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted. The tag is to cite a problem that has existed since the AfD discussion. 7 out of 10 editors in that discussion noted the article needed references to establish notability. The resualts of your edits is that you have expanded the article based on the already existant references but you did not address the notability problem itsself. You should not remove a tag unless you have addressed the problem cited. "published, third-party sources" that "establish its notability" are defined at WP:BIO. Sources have these problems:
  • Ref #1 "American Society of Botanical Artists". Criteria for entry is simply paying a fee and therefore "self-nomination" (WP:BIO Note #4)
  • Ref #2 "ABC Madrid-Cataluna", interview 8 May 2003. (Apparently) a Biographical text, not used for, or in support of notability.
  • Ref #3 "Círculo del Arte". Commercial site, therefore not independent.
  • Ref #4 "After Calamity, A Critic's Soft Landing", The New York Times. This is a story about the notable art critic Robert Hughes' accident and recovery where Doris Downes is simply the source being quoted. Notability is not generally considered transferable (WP:GNP, WP:NOTINHERITED) and notability does not extend to people heavily referenced in a single news event WP:BIO1E.
  • Ref #5 Brown, Mick. "A brush with death", The Daily Telegraph, 23 February 2002. Another ref about Robert Hughes, same problems as ref #4
  • Ref #6 Spiegel, Olga. "Premsa: Sean Scully profundiza en su camino de abstracción poética", e-barcelona.org, 17 May 2003. This is a review of an art exhibition at a commercial gallery describing the work and announcing the date and location of the show (Parés Room. Petritxol, 5. Until the 31 of May). This type of coverage in a source dedicated to such notices comes under "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources"(WP:BIO) and "mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail" (WP:BIO Note #5). All artist have published mentions and reviews of their commercial exhibitions. Wikipedia is not a directory WP:NOT#DIRECTORY that includes all artists, therefore, artist notability has to rise above what is standard. "Above standard" is defined in Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria-->Creative professionals.
  • Ref #7 Your Biggest Investment", Smart Money, December 1996, Vol. V - Number XII. reference to an award of un-known significance and not related to claim of notability "botanical artist and painter of natural history."
  • Ref #8 Bennett, Lennie. "The art of conversation", St. Petersburg Times, 9 November 2003. Biographical text, not used for, or in support of notability and un-usable since subject making an observation is related.
  • Ref #9 Arisa, J. J. Navarro. "La vida secreta de las flores", El Mundo, 18 May 2003. Another review of the artists Parés Room, Petritxol show. Same problem as Ref #6
  • Ref #10 "Art and the Garden", hamptons.com, 10 October 2008. Another commercial art gallery show review, trivial mention. Same problem as Ref #6
  • Ref #11 "Gallery publications: catalogues and books", Eaton Fine Art, Inc. Eaton Fine Art is a commercial gallery. Reference is a promotional piece published by this commercial gallery that carries the artists work, therefore not independent.
Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the Afd tag. You placed the tag on this piece repeatedly, for the reason of lack of references. The article has been expanded and references have been added in order to bring this up to satisfaction, certainly for WP:BIO. Your reasons above are stated without the proper research (see #2,6,9). Articles written about Downes's work, in Spain, were reported in the most prestigious newspapers in the country and by art critics/journalists whose opinions are highly regarded. Try a google of their names and you will see. By accusing these critics of merely reviewing the exhibition from using press releases is libelous because it compromises their journalistic integrity. I am sure they would not appreciate your statements. The articles are lengthy (again, google them and translate) and devoted to the work of the artist at length, not in passing. Also, you will see that being awarded as an art director and citing those sources does not negate her achievements as an artist. You don't have to be good at one or the other. Many people accomplish multiple achievements, not necessarily related (as you can see in Wikipedia in many creative lives). I also want to add that when an artist is included in group exhibitions, it is important to see the company they are in, professionally. Again, if one is even somewhat knowledgeable about contemporary art, it is apparent that she is in good company. Annlanding (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Annlanding[reply]

Correction: Above statement refers to Notability Tag, not Afd.Annlanding (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Annlanding[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Doris Downes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doris Downes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doris_Downes&oldid=1201636891"