Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecilie Dahl


 * 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  20:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Cecilie Dahl

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. No evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 15:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn per the arguments below. Keep. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 20:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 15:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 15:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 15:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Having her work as part of Malmö Konsthall collection and exhibiting in Brooklyn Museum she easily passes both WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. The article may not be mature yet, but definitely has to stay. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , I don't see how this passes WP:GNG. Where are the significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources? That being said, artists often get their works exhibited in museums (it's a common thing) but we often consider them notable if their works has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition. In this case, they would pass WP:ARTIST but that is not the case here. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 19:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Malmö Konsthall is one of the major museums and exhibition halls in Sweden. Her works are in that collection. The same may be said about Brooklyn Museums. So, what do you consider significant coverage then if not this? Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Having their works in museum is not a ticket for a Wikipedia article. That being said, you probably do not know the difference between WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Do you? WP:GNG is the general notability guidelines. Subject of an article often meet WP:GNG, based on the subject's significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources. While WP:ARTIST is a subject -specific notability guidelines. Subject of an article doesn't need to passes WP:GNG if it already pass WP:ARTIST and vice-visa. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 19:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't consider MoMA, Brooklyn Museum and Malmö Konsthall sites as reliable? This makes it passing WP:GNG. For the WP:ARTIST it passes by "(b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition" and "(d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Cheers. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep as per . "The person's work (or works) ... is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."--Theredproject (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:Artist with works in major permanent collections. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've read over and agree with the astute analysis by, above. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:34, 13 March 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.