Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Obermoeller


 * 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. In addition to the argument to retain the article by User:Candleabracadabra, the nominator has essentially withdrawn the nomination in their comment below stating "speedy keep", although not explicitly (such as stating "withdrawn" or striking the nomination). (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 17:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Linda Obermoeller

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an article about a non-living person, so I especially hoped to find more info about her. There are snippets for several books that seem to announce exhibition showings, and nothing that gets to her notability. I could find no further information in news, HighBeam, web, etc. reliable sources. Does not appear to meet WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG.  CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 15:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 17:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 17:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 17:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Some coverage here. Not famous but received some recognition and awards. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment There are no strong opinions on this one way or another, so I am happy to go back and get the bits of information that is out there about here and expand where I can.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 05:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - This has been out here for awhile, has been relisted, and the only vote is a "weak keep". Can we just move this to Speedy keep?-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 15:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:10, 20 January 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.