Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faith47


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Faith47

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:ARTIST. Not a notable subject. Taroaldo (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As the editor who challenged the CSD, I will abstain from directly supporting an outcome here, but I would like to point out this link in the Bibliography seems to be some real coverage of the artist, though there may be dispute as to the reliability of the source for use in meeting the notability standards.  Monty  845  23:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Aside from the fact that "SensesLost" is a glorified blog, the coverage in question does nothing in regard to meeting the criteria set out in WP:ARTIST. Taroaldo (talk) 23:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My intent in offering the blog link was not to claim it is enough to satisfy the notability guidelines alone, I merely want to raise the issue that this person MAY actually be notable. Also, I may be more willing then most to accept a blog as a reliable source, but I think the blog appears to be enough of a reliable source that it could serve as part of the basis for notability if additional sources are found. The blog appears to me to be taking a pretty serious, journalistic approach, to its subject area, and to be more then just a personal blog. Additional information about editorial policy, accountability and a larger breadth of coverage would all make it a better notability source, but again, I think there is enough indicia of reliability that the blog in question should contribute towards meeting the notability guideline. I would also note that as the article refers to the artist only by their alias, the extremely strict reliability criteria for BLP cases seems less applicable here, though they are still relevant.  Monty  845  00:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've gone in and provided two (plus a 3rd but it is just a passing reference) additional sources that support notability and that are a lot better then the blog, I have also cut some of the un-sourced fluff out of the article. While it could probably cut more, and maybe even stubified, I think it now has a reasonable change of meeting the general notability guidelines. There are a number of foreign language sources that appear in the google news search suggested by the AFD template that I suspect would further bolster the claim to notability, but I do not speak the language.  Monty  845  01:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The coverage appears unbiased. Coverage from Canada, Africa, UK. Article needs to be written better.... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The issue is not about biased or unbiased coverage: it's about whether or not this person meets the criteria in WP:ARTIST. The article, including limited coverage from a blog and a couple of websites, fails WP:ARTIST Taroaldo (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Coverage exists in multiple reliable sources:, are in Spanish covering her contribution to an art exhibition; this article covers a mural which she was commissioned to do; article covers he contribution to another art exhibition.  This is in addition to the iAfrica, and Canada.com articles already referenced in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * 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.