Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cara Romero


 * 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. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Cara Romero

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I declined a CSD A7 thinking this article had promise, but after looking around for sources, I couldn't find anything other than a few mentions on gallery websites, and one art award. Doesn't seem to be a notable artist. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  00:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing WP:ARTIST. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not really funny, Don.198.58.171.47 (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete refs do not establish notability, and search turns up little more.198.58.171.47 (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes CREATIVE and GNG. Covered in several reliable sources with reviews of her work. Also, biographical information. to take another look as I've added sources I found behind paywalls. Maybe that will change your mind. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Switching to Keep per Megalibrarygirl. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * After looking for sources added by Megalibrarygirl, I reconsider and it's a Keep now. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep I find the citations very poor.
 * Photographer Cara Romero: Creating Conversations is an interview
 * Bioneers is an affiliated source
 * "Through an Indigenous Lens" I cannot access
 * "Indigenous Artists Find" reads like a rehashed press release from rainmaker gallery
 * "Cara Romero - Rainmaker Gallery" is from an affiliated source, rainmaker gallery
 * "Celebrating the" only makes a brief mention
 * "New Show Pushes Artists to 'Break Their Boxes'" which BTW is easily accessible via https://www.abqjournal.com/1049732/new-show-pushes-artists-to-break-their-boxes.html, and does no need a paywalled link, make only brief mention of Romero.
 * The same is true for "Twelve Native Artists Honored for Work" which also does not need to be linked to a paywalled URL, since it is at http://www.columbian.com/news/2017/apr/28/twelve-native-artists-honored-for-work/
 * Four Winds Gallery is an affiliated source, as is Robert Nichols Gallery.

In summary, I'd say there are some sources, but none presented so far provide an in-depth critical assessment of her work. If this passes WP:ARTIST, then only by the slimmest of margins. Mduvekot (talk) 13:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment After reading Mduvekot's comment, I still stand by the view we should delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2017 (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.