Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Ann Wynn


 * 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   delete. Tim Song (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Jane Ann Wynn

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unreferenced biography of artist and teacher who fails WP:ARTIST and WP:PROF. Purpose likely promotional: appears to have been created by an associate (see friends list at ) and edited from IPs in the 128.231.88.xxx range by a person with a close connection, as well as by the subject herself from two different accounts, and. Google hits, but nothing approaching WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS, so fails WP:GNG. -- Rrburke (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Regardless of the motives of the creators, the artist appears notable. The article is not unreferenced, it's just referenced via external links instead of proper Wikipedia references; for example, she appeared on an episode of HGTV which certainly contributes to her notability. She is mentioned in a few books at Google Book search, and a GNews search turns up various references to her art and recommendations of her books, for example Seattle Times, San Diego Union Tribune. I'll see if I can do something about referencing the article properly. --MelanieN (talk) 03:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I appreciate your rescue efforts, but a single appearance on a cable specialty channel and a couple of ephemeral mentions in the paper don't, in my opinion, add up to "significant coverage". As well, the external links you refer to aren't independent references.  Prior to the article links you added, the only independent reference in the article was to a Baltimore Sun (in which the subject is briefly profiled as a scooter enthusiast, not an artist) and a link to heartsart.com which doesn't meet WP:RS.  I had seen the articles you added prior to nominating the article for deletion, but to my mind they fall far short of satisfying the General notability guideline. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. Fails WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Brief book listings in newspapers don't qualify per the guidelines. Pcap ping  08:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. There isn't much evidence of passing WP:CREATIVE nor WP:GNG — I don't think the brief listings of her books in "gift suggestion" columns counts as the sort of nontrivial review of her work that would make them notable, and the listing of her exhibits seems to be mainly or entirely minor local galleries. There's even less evidence for WP:PROF. And the length of the article is far beyond what its meager sources can support. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - based on past AfD discussions, local artists don't hack it. To be notable, an artist must first pass WP:GNG and then WP:ARTIST.  If there is any confusion, we generally keep artists who have exhibited in major art centers, such as Taos and Santa Fe, New Mexico, San Francisco, California, Nantucket, Massachusetts, Manhattan, or Florence, Italy.  I see no such indication here. Bearian (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of significant coverage. The sources provide little or no information regarding her except for proving her existance. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2010 (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.