Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inez Storer

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. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 02:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inez Storer

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

Poorly referenced BLP I dream of horses (T) @ 04:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do not believe that being poorly referenced is a reason for deletion; however, not having significant coverage in reliable sources would be. I do not see many returns in Google News; however, Google Books returns quite a few. Not sure at this point.--TTTommy111 (talk) 06:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Thanks to everyone for digging. Change comment to keep after reviewing the additional information. --TTTommy111 (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~: She appears to be arts faculty (if only occasional) and a working artist. Her work gets noticed when it's exhibited, but I rather suspect she needs to be talked about -- a retrospective or a discussion of her place in an arts development -- to generate the RS that will satisfy notability. If those are found, then consider my opinion moot. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to keep now that additional sources and references have been added that are independent and aimed at the artist herself, rather than actions by the artist. Even without the new material, the piece was nearly a keep. Now it is a clear keep, in my view. Hithladaeus (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~weak delete~~ Keep after added refs. Her work appears in many gallery listings, but I can find no RS about her. LaMona (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets 4(d) of WP:ARTIST as she is "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums". I've added some reliable sources and think that the article now meets WP:GNG criteria. gobonobo ^c 03:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a couple of sources from HighBeam that discuss her work. There are other sources there, but they seem like brief mentions. I don't have an opinion right now as to whether or not this adds up to enough. I don't know anything about the notability of artists or art galleries. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gobonobo's argument. Having works in the permanent collection of several major public collections is a strong indication of notability. Considering her age, there is likely to be offline coverage about her, in addition to the online coverage already found. Sionk (talk) 02:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being included in the permanent collections of six museums notable enough for their own articles is good enough for WP:ARTIST, I think. The article has been improved considerably since nomination, but this information was already present in the article at nomination time. The retrospective Hithladaeus asks for is there now, in the additional reading section of the article, and there is also plenty of in-depth newspaper coverage both of her and her art to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein and Gobonobo's criteria. Plenty of reliable sources and news coverage. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:51, 3 June 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.