Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Owen


 * 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. I didn't use this fact in determining consensus, but note: Saatchi is pretty much open for artists to sell work through (http://www.saatchiart.com/upload/why) ... I let my own listing there go fallow a couple years back. j⚛e deckertalk 13:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Jessica Owen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable artist. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete. An advert or non notably biography. Szzuk (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC) 
 * Delete Non notable bio, created by a COI editor, and in some cases sourced to inappropriate sources such as blogs.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Tentative keep per WP:ANYBIO; there are sources to the theft of her art in a reliable source, and her work is listed at the Saatchi gallery website. The problem is that she clearly fails WP:CREATIVE. Bearian (talk) 19:58, 5 August 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 03:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Unless thieves are recognized as art critics, and their theft a review, there is nothing about such a crime, and routine media coverage of it, that confers notability on an artist. I see no other evidence of notability. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: Saatchiart is a commercial marketplace distinct from the Saatchi Gallery; operating as a seller there is not evidence of notability in itself. Theft of works (also a problem common for exhibiting artists) does not confer notability. No evidence of attained WP:ARTIST notability. AllyD (talk) 07:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. A shame really, I like the Peak District and the views it offers, but the only reliable and independent source out there seems to be the BBC News article from 2005 covering her stolen paintings. If Manchester Craft and Design Centre was an article, I could be tempted to redirect to that, but it isn't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  08:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete doesn't pass notability.   Jim Carter (from public cyber)  12:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as no evidence of notability. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  12:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. Article created by what is likely a WP:SPA. --Jersey92 (talk) 01:15, 9 August 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.