Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olive Miriam Buchholz Parmelee


 * 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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Olive Miriam Buchholz Parmelee

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This person appears to fail WP:GNG, as well as WP:ARTIST. I couldn't find any independent reliable sources that cover the person in-depth, or at least not enough to satisfy significant coverage (which is required in order for an article subject to meet WP:GNG).  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   22:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as A7. I don't see any claim to significance. She's just a painter. clpo13(talk) 23:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Striking my vote as there's a claim of significance now. Will re-evaluate. clpo13(talk) 06:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * delete unless some non web references are provided. She definitely created during pre Internet period. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Quis separabit?  02:13, 12 March 2016 (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.