Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Balma


 * 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   no consensus. (non-admin closure) Good afternoon (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Donna Balma

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of an artist, edging heavily into promotional public relations/advertising territory and sourced almost entirely to primary sourcing in which the subject herself is credited as the author of the reference in question. It's certainly possible that she might qualify for a properly and neutrally written article sourced to properly reliable sources, but she's not entitled to keep this this doesn't qualify for inclusion in its present form. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - Not quite finding enough sources to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. On a separate note, I might suggest removing the last clause of the nomination as purely an assumption of bad faith. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 18:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand how it implies bad faith of any sort. It's not any sort of accusation against her as an individual, but a statement about the quality of the article as written. Bearcat (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Specifically she's not entitled to keep this. There is meaning created by connecting "she" and "keep" when an AfD is supposed to be about Wikipedia keeping something. Whether intended or not, it implies some sense of COI, article ownership, or otherwise a sense that the extent to which the subject of this article benefits is in any way relevant to whether or not we keep it. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 02:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah. Well, trust me that I didn't intend to imply that — but I'll rephrase it nonetheless. Bearcat (talk) 06:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:42, 16 November 2014 (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.