Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monroe Hodder

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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monroe Hodder

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

Does not seem to meet notability requirements for WP:CREATIVE: no work in permanent collections of major museums, no extensive critical discussion of her work. Refs are unreliable notices DGG ( talk ) 23:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now likely unless someone wants it drafted and userfied as I found some links at News, browser and Highbeam but nothing to suggest better sourcing. SwisterTwister talk 00:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you supply the sources SwisterTwister? Why not add them so the article doesn't need to be deleted? If you supply them to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Red, someone will fill the article in. I'd be happy to add what I can. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-for now, but tag as needing sources. This list of artwork is impressive. I wish there were some sources linked to images to see it. Would really help improve the article. DangerDogWest (talk) 05:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks to pass GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article has met WP:GNG by significant coverage in numerous reliable sources. Zpeopleheart (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contrary to other comments, WP:GNG has certainly not been met. The sources given are either not independent of the subject or are promotional in nature, publishing press releases and/or listings of exhibitions. The "media outlets" are the same thing, promotional copy sent from a gallery. Her exhibition record does not satisfy WP:ARTIST. She is a working artist, yes, but not notable by Wikipedia guidelines. Simply put, there are no reliable sources and notability is not established. freshacconci talk to me 18:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and SwisterTwister, and especially Freshacconci, whose assessment hits the nail on the head. Editors simply saying that this individual passes WP:GNG, with supplying references to back up that assertion speaks for itself. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:59, 30 October 2015 (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.