Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beth Campbell


 * 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The result was Keep as withdrawn only because the best source regarding collections is the Art Daily. Honestly, I had search for collections but also particularly classified searching with including "permanent" and the simple searches were simply finding the non-significant collections (NAC). SwisterTwister  talk  17:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Beth Campbell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD removed as the user apparently believes I had not "looked" at the listed sources but I in fact had actually mention them in my PROD and he also claims that the listed sources are apparently enough. However, the sources are not actual convincing substantial coverage and the exhibitions are not major art museums with permanent collections, something the PROD never attended to, thus still questionable for the applicable notability. The listed news, one of which I recovered and can be viewed in my PROD, is only either local coverage or a limited number of sentences, with my own searches also simply finding mere mentions, not actual coverage. I still confirm everything at my PROD here. Notifying who has a long history with these subject articles. SwisterTwister  talk  16:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per this and this, which are already in the article, plus all these that the nominator was unable to find:, , , , , , , , , , . --Michig (talk) 16:52, 25 June 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.