Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelica Leight


 * 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--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 13:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Angelica Leight

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable new age artist. None of the presented sources mention her in the printed text (the audio sample may). Apart from that, I could not find any sources. Happy Squirrel (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete According to the page, Angelica Leight is not an artist at all, but a fictional character of an artist that is the alleged author of a fake parody website. Her persona is not seen anywhere outside the website, so she is a non-notable fictional character. Passengerpigeon (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

As the author of this page, this is not a "hoax in disguise". The character is a satiric artwork and is performed by the creator, Lynden Stone. I have amended the page to reflect this including deleting the category "Australian women artists" and including the category "Fictional Australian people". I have also added the link to the crosseXions catalogue essay by curator Beth Jackson where Angelica Leight is mentioned on page 3. Angelica Leight is also mentioned by Beth Jackson in the radio interview (link provided). Gusaroo (talk) 09:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Gusaroo
 * Delete: Per findings of Passengerpigeon. No wonder nothing I searched for exists. This is a hoax in disquise. Fylbecatulous talk 03:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As amended, the article is even worse. Even Lynden Stone appears not to be notable either. No Google hits except Facebook, LinkedIn, their personal webpage and whatever the MIT Press Journal is (that you have to register and sign in to access). The article makes a mockery of encyclopedic content.This should have been speedily deleted... Fylbecatulous talk 13:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as there's nothing for any applicable notability here, article is not convincing at all. SwisterTwister   talk  04:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.