Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sigrid Holmwood


 * 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) power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 00:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Sigrid Holmwood

 * – ( View AfD View log  Holmwood Stats )

Not a notable person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathrogers7 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Page fails WP:GNGMgbo120 (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Page passes WP:GNG. Significant coverage in the Sunday Times article given one of the external links, Artforum magazine  and Time Out . Also in books published by the Rosen Publishing Group  and Laurence King Publishing . --Qwfp (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep One might look at the low resolution pic in the article and think "this Sunday painter with no sources does not deserve an article". But if you actually do some searching, you will find that she is one of the select artists represented by the real Saatchi gallery in London, had a painting just sold at Christies for 8K pounds and is doing serious contemporary stuff, to put it plainly. When you see those things, it's an opportunity to dig deeper. I did, and was able to add five sources to the article. Items like this page in a book on Breughel, another entry in a book on contemporary painters, and finally the Sunday Times article tip the scale. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:GNG, thus is notable. See extra sources that ThatMontrealIP added --DannyS712 (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Definitely meets WP:GNG, thanks to work by ThatMontrealIP and Qwfp. I added in the ArtForum reference which Qwfp found. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST, borne out by sources given above, also, Holmwood's work was part of the Saatchi exhibition, "Champagne Life", it was written about (not always complimentary) in The Guardian (here), Forbes (here), Artnet (here), GQ (here), International Business Times (here). Coolabahapple (talk) 11:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm for Keep, and the article has good sourcing now. Did you read the sources you linked? The first one is a sentence, IBTimes and Artnet are simply her name, and she is not even mentioned in the Forbes and GQ links. There are lots of good sources, but not the ones you linked to. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * yes i did read them, i included the above sources to show that the exhibition itself was significant, and with Holmwood being a part of it adds to her notableness, have added the words "it was" to my "keep" above and apologise for any confusion. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, per sources in article and the links given by Coolabahapple. /Julle (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Artforum review. Please search WP:BEFORE you nominate. This one is clear, if you do a cursory search.--Theredproject (talk) 05:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * To be fair to the nominator I don't think it was all that clear from a cursory search; I'd never heard of Artforum and I wasn't sure it was reliable source until I found its Wikipedia page. Qwfp (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2019 (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.