Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masha Archer


 * 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. Tyrenius (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Masha Archer

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Incomplete AfD nomination. The nominator left the following message on the talk page: ''This Article should be nominated for speedy deletion.this does not fit WP style nor is the artist prominent or known in the jewelry world. Archiemartin23:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)''. Procedural nomination - no opinion is being expressed by me. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 13:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep -- appears notable. 22 press mentions found with Google News' archive search. -- A. B. (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletions.  -- A. B. (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletions.  -- A. B. (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions.  -- A. B. (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions.  -- A. B. (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep perhaps satisfies acceptability, given that many of the mentions are just commercial notes. Shiva Evolved (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems genuinely notable for her jewelry designs. Anarchia (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as NN; Saks PR will achieve many mentions in local papers; this does not meet the requirements of WP:BIO. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - articles about her are not press releases, but include pieces written by newspaper staff writers so meets requirements for multiple independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but needs new "phraseology"; reads very much like a promotion. Fromseatoshiningsea (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2007 (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.