Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Potter (painter)


 * 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 speedy keep per WP:SK. The nomination does not advance a valid rationale for deletion. While WP:COI editing is strongly discouraged, it's not forbidden, and evidence of the article creator potentially being the subject of the article has not been presented. Also, sources are not required to be hyperlinked in order to be valid for English Wikipedia articles. Furthermore, consensus in this discussion is clearly for article retention. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica1000 21:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Mary Potter (painter)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It is obvious that the Article Creator wrote most of the material, and 1 of the 3 sources does not exist. Fdizile (developer) 14:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Good, clear well-referenced short piece about a figure notable enough to have an ODNB article. I can see no justification for proposing its deletion. Tim riley (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. This bio article of an important English 20th century painter could use more in-line references, but it is obviously notable and a good start. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep (possibly speedy). The subject appears in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which is immediately indicative of meeting WP:ANYBIO criteria; in addition, she had retrospectives at the Tate, Whitechapel and Serpentine, thus meeting the WP:ARTIST criteria and received an OBE. It is not clear what is the nominator's objection to the article creator having written the article text? - that is precisely what is required of a Wikipedia editor. AllyD (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy keepNothing even approaching a reason for deleting this article is given. Artist easily passes notability criteria. What does "one of the three sources given doesn't exist" mean????TheLongTone (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep Potter has an OBE, so she is notable. The article also has sources from BBC and museums. The citation formatting needs a bit of work, but this is a new article, so that is to be expected. It does not warrant a deletion. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 18:54, 19 April 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.