Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorna Boschman


 * 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. Enigmamsg 03:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Lorna Boschman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of an artist, whose claims of notability per WP:CREATIVE are referenced almost entirely to primary sources rather than reliable or notability-assisting ones. The only reference here that isn't a complete non-starter in terms of properly referencing a person as notable is her biographical blurb in the MediaQueer directory -- but that's not enough to pass WP:GNG all by itself as an article's only valid source. A person's eligibility for a Wikipedia article is not determined by what they did, but by how much media coverage they did or didn't receive for doing what they did. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 18:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 18:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep two works in the permanent collection of the National Gallery of Canada . Her work also screened at MoMA. --Theredproject (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep In addition to the permanent collections, there are extensive book mentions in good publications. She is well-known in the Canadian art world. Very extensive sources exist, even though they may not yet be in the article.104.163.159.237 (talk) 02:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Many sources added. I think it is also fair to argue that has has made a substantial contribution to queer media art and is recognized as having done so by her peers.104.163.159.237 (talk) 03:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Quite a bit of sourcing improvement lately. I do think it was sufficiently well referenced even before, and notability wasn't really in question. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:25, 2 May 2018 (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.