Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natacha Merritt


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Natacha Merritt

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable Rhomb (talk) 07:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete as nominator. The article asserts none of the criteria at WP:CREATIVE. She has published a NN book: not enough. An interview and an article about photographing herself giving oral sex) may support WP:V but hardly WP:N. Rhomb (talk) 07:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per, , , , , and . I'd rather not have articles this on Wikipedia, but she is notable. Joe Chill (talk) 13:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The criteria are:
 * The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
 * The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
 * The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
 * The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.
 * Which of these do you think this person has met? Rhomb (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject." WP:CREATIVE is part of WP:BIO. She meets WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Presumed" perhaps -- presumptions are rebuttable. Since "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability", I claim that mere sensationalism over her work is trivial, and that this is supported by the fact that the failure to meet the criteria I quoted above supports that assessment.  Rhomb (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Per years of community consensus, the links show notability and this article will be kept for sure. Joe Chill (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pmlineditor      ∞    11:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Like Joe Chill, I'm not a fan of her work and I wouldn't give her the time of day. But that's neither here nor there -- other people have, as the sources listed in the article and by Joe Chill clearly show. (Also, a number of other sources are behind pay walls.) She meets WP:BIO, and saying that the sources are trivial sounds a bit like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As to the claim that the book isn't notable, Notability (books) says a book is notable if "the book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." The book has been reviewed in The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, and The Guardian, among others.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  16:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. J04n(talk page) 12:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm puzzled that anyone should bother to !vote "keep" when they would both rather see the article not here?  Rhomb (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Because she passes WP:BIO. Voting delete by our personal opinions won't get it deleted. Joe Chill (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The WP:RS's provided by Joe Chill have been incorporated into the article. It still needs to be expanded but the groundwork has been laid.  She is clearly WP:N. J04n(talk page) 01:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Not much to add to Joe Chill and Fabrictramp. They've really covered everything. Lord Spongefrog,  (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!)  18:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Obvious notability. Specific contribution to her art form. Addressed in mainstream news media. Hektor (talk) 08:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's verifiability, not notability. Rhomb (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The link you give for notability (WP:CREATIVE) lists "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." That seems to be exactly what Hektor is saying.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  17:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I read the Salon article, and she is clearly notable.  D r e a m Focus  14:26, 15 November 2009 (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.