Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joan Stark


 * 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. There was consensus that the available sources met WP:N. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Joan Stark

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Poor evidence of notability. Reads like an attempt to use Wikipedia to make the subject more notable. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 07:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. The medium of ASCII Art has a fairly large Wikipedia article and makes no metion of this "prolific" artist.  Does not appear to meet the criteria set forth for creative professionals in WP:BIO. Movementarian (Talk) 08:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although being on Geocities after all these years might suggest otherwise, Stark has received coverage in multiple reliable sources including the two books cited. Satisfies WP:BIO. Using a Wikipedia article as proof one way or another is generally not encouraged. --Dhartung | Talk 21:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Query: Could you quote all or part of the passages in those books? (Being mentioned in two “ reliable sources” does not imply notability.) BTW, her opening Geocities page declares “site established 96'September / last updated 01'June”. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 00:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The discussion in Cyberpl@y is four pages long, including reproductions of two ASCII artworks. The same scholar, Danet, discusses her (and other online artists) in half-a-dozen scholarly papers, but most of them I cannot access. --75.42.235.132 (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've found the discussion therein amongst Google Books. Discussion of Stark is actually less than three pages (starting about half-way down page 228 and finishing about half-way down page 230).  I recommend that editors skim or scan it to determine for themselves the extent to which they believe that it establishes notability. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 02:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources have been provided to demonstrate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The sources establish some notability, but it's borderline in terms of what should be in an encyclopedia or not. Still, the sources are reliable enough that it should stay. Xihr (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Glancing at a couple of the google scholar refs, I think it is safe to say that it is a more than trivial mention of Stark. However, as a BLP, it needs more sourcing all around. Pastordavid (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2008 (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.