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.
not yet notable artist. No work in the permanent collection of major museums. No major studies about her--the first NYT ref has one sentence mentioning her in a long review of a exhibition; the other mentions her only as the wife of the subject of the article. DGG (
talk ) 21:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep Gobonobo has summed it up well. I think It's more the collections that mean she may meet
WP:NARTIST. There is not an enormous smount of coverage out there, but with the collections it maybe enough.
Possibly (
talk) 23:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Changing to solid keep based on the two collections and the
article improvements by gobonobo. GNG is fully met, and
WP:NARTIST is minimally met for the two collections (one of the works is a collaborative work, but she is clearly credited).
Possibly (
talk) 03:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep On the basis of available resources, subject seems to be notable.
Niceguylucky (
talk) 08:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep per discussion and page improvements.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 12:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep - The artist is in the early stages of her career and we will probably hearing more about her in the coming years. The article in its current state, thanks to the great work by
Gobonobo now meets
WP:GNG. She also is in two museum collections therefore meets
WP:NARTIST.
Netherzone (
talk) 13:01, 14 February 2021 (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.
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.
not yet notable artist. No work in the permanent collection of major museums. No major studies about her--the first NYT ref has one sentence mentioning her in a long review of a exhibition; the other mentions her only as the wife of the subject of the article. DGG (
talk ) 21:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep Gobonobo has summed it up well. I think It's more the collections that mean she may meet
WP:NARTIST. There is not an enormous smount of coverage out there, but with the collections it maybe enough.
Possibly (
talk) 23:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Changing to solid keep based on the two collections and the
article improvements by gobonobo. GNG is fully met, and
WP:NARTIST is minimally met for the two collections (one of the works is a collaborative work, but she is clearly credited).
Possibly (
talk) 03:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep On the basis of available resources, subject seems to be notable.
Niceguylucky (
talk) 08:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep per discussion and page improvements.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 12:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep - The artist is in the early stages of her career and we will probably hearing more about her in the coming years. The article in its current state, thanks to the great work by
Gobonobo now meets
WP:GNG. She also is in two museum collections therefore meets
WP:NARTIST.
Netherzone (
talk) 13:01, 14 February 2021 (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.