Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doris Downes


 * 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. Wal  ton  Need some help?  16:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Doris Downes

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not a notable person. This artist bio does not meet Notability (people) -->Creative professionals - no independent 3rd party reference / no significant or well-known work, or collective body of work / no permanent collection in a significant gallery or museum of more than local significance. Other claims by editor and others do not show notablility other than ordinary notability for this class of profesional. Fountains of Bryn Mawr 17:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article already had third-party references, but they were incorrectly listed under external links rather than references. I added some material. I think that the article now passes WP:BIO. --Eastmain 19:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The problem I noted is not a lack of references, it is a lack of references that meet Wikipedia's criteria. None of the links supplied in that article meet the criteria because: 4 of them are media announcements derived from press releases from a commercial gallery (a gallery press release is not a independent 3rd person source that establishes notability), and one is NOT about the subject at all, it is about the subjects husband and what a good wife the subject is. Fountains of Bryn Mawr 20:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Very weak delete - three of the references are in a language I don't speak a word of, one only mentions her as part of a laundry list of artists and one is about her husband rather than her, but I'm perfectly willing to be persuaded that she's more important than this article as it stands makes her seem -  irides centi   (talk to me!)  20:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * &emsp; Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  &emsp; Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,


 * Delete the majority of references do not directly discuss her works nor profession, in any depth, whatsoever. all the references seem to do is prove that she exists. the_undertow talk  02:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Spanish references are as R as English.The one in ElMundo is a full feature length article, primarily about her, and at considerable length; a key phrase is "la obra de Doris Downes como producto de una refinada sensibilidad plástica, un espíritu inquisitivo y una técnica pictórica -basada en la acuarela- que consigue un gran efecto de frescura y luminosidad." which should be clear enough. The others are less significant & wouldn't do as sole sources:  circulodelarte is a brief article about her,. and the one in e-barcelona is a significant part of a general review.  Yes, her husband is more famous but that doesn't keep her from being N in her own right. DGG 03:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * comment i dont think that phrase in quotes is 'clear enough,' by virtue of the fact that it is not in english. since this is the english language wiki, i think refs should be in english. one can see the difficulty in verifying a source when one doesnt speak that language. it also is problematic when a user has to take the word of another, especially when it comes to an issue of verifiability. imo, the el mundo article is nothing more than an open invite to her exhibit. there is something in me that believes the article is not doing this woman justice, but so far, i don't think these references are of much use. the_undertow talk  07:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * comment Sorry to drop in another comment... don't want to troll, but the phrase "la obra de Doris Downes como producto de una refinada sensibilidad plástica, un espíritu inquisitivo y una técnica pictórica -basada en la acuarela- que consigue un gran efecto de frescura y luminosidad." translated via Altavista.com's Babel Fish is "the work of Doris Downes like product of one refined plastic sensitivity, an inquisitive spirit and a pictorial technique - based on the watercolor that obtains to a great effect of freshness and luminosity." I fail to see how this quote in any way gives notability since, #1 - being "good at painting" is not in Wikipedia's notability criteria, and #2 - the quote is by the subjects husband, Robert Hughes - totaly failing the independent criteria. Fountains of Bryn Mawr 23:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Honestly, is this AFD a joke? The subject is very clearly notable. Additional references simply need to be added. Cleo123 07:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, needs better references.--Vintagekits 15:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete: fails WP:BIO. Only 142 Google hits, many of them not referring to this subject, and of the ones that do, almost all of them (like the references cited) are trivial mentions in connection with her more famous husband.  I'd like to see some verifiable proof of notability, please.    Ravenswing  18:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment As with every time I use the "not referenced" reason for a delete !vote, I've made an attempt to find "proper" references, and am drawing a blank on this one. I know that doesn't necessarily mean anything, but I think the people saying "just add more refs" need to try and dig some out rather than assume "they must be there" —  irides centi   (talk to me!)  21:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Mm, I do the same, and I agree with you: the "just add more refs" or "it seems notable" arguments drive me up a wall. This is an encyclopedia here, and we can't assume a goddamn thing.  Policy explicitly states that it is up to the editors who wish to save an article under threat of deletion to find and insert the proper references, and lacking those references, an article must be deleted.    Ravenswing  02:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per RGT. Eusebeus 15:54, 27 April 2007 (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.