Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betony Vernon

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 keep. Per sources later provided. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Betony Vernon

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Murph9500 (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Murph9500 (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Murph9500 (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no references, and the "links" do very little to establish notability. Maproom (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:ARTN. Rebb ing 17:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. purely promotion, written by admitted paid editor,[1] Accomplishments not adequately documented. DGG ( talk ) 08:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/comment - Hmmm. The article is definitely not great, and whoever did it clearly isn't worth what they're being paid if they can't do it properly - but I'm not so sure that the subject is not notable. There are a great many references to her in various books, magazines and news articles, in various languages. In addition to a number of promising media sources, she was interviewed at length by TIME magazine, which is a pretty good indicator of notability, and there is commentary at the beginning on her career. I am intrigued by all those non-English sources on her - they seem to mostly be in Italian. But searches for the person does indicate that she could possibly pass GNG guidelines, so I can't jump on the delete bandwagon - although I've no objection to the article being deleted and then recreated properly. Mabalu (talk) 09:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has it's issues. Regarding notability there are many articles that have more than trivial mentions. For example [this article] and [book coverage] go well beyond trivial mention. With the large number of sources that go beyond simple mentions of her as an example author/designer/anthropologist it satisfies [WP:BIO] Gab4gab (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The article does need work. Between the references recently added to the article (as a list of links, some admittedly not good sources), Mabalu & Gab4gab's cases above, and my own Google searches, it does seem probable that there's at least the minimum level of notability. E.g. NY Times article on her Murph9500 (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the following three pieces clearly satisfy GNG:

Colman, David (August 23, 2013). "Betony Vernon's Guardian Angel". Fashion & Style. The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 27, 2016. Retrieved September 27, 2016.
Cavanagh, Alice (May 28, 2014). "Designer Betony Vernon Likes Long, Hot Baths With Her Lover". New York. Archived from the original on September 27, 2016. Retrieved September 27, 2016.
Berry, Allison (February 13, 2013). "Q&A with Designer, Author and Sex Educator Betony Vernon". Style. Time. Archived from the original on September 27, 2016. Retrieved September 27, 2016.

It appears there's more, but this is enough. Rebb ing 17:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To evaluate sources presented SST flyer 03:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SST flyer 03:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - NYTimes, Time Magazine, Vogue, and the fashion, art, and entertainment worlds disagree with your assertions re: notability. Hmlarson (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep work shown at V&A and several other museums satisfies WP:ARTIST4b. Mduvekot (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2016 (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.