Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stella Ross-Craig


 * 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The result was   Nomination withdrawn as heading towards WP:SNOW. LibStar (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Stella Ross-Craig

 * – ( View AfD View log )

fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. only the first gnews hit could be considered indepth. a claim to fame is the "Kew Award medal" which only gets 1 gnews hit (the same article). so it's a very non notable award. LibStar (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm finding stuff in Google Books search which would substantiate claims of notability. I'll spend some time doing research and add a few references to the article. riffic (talk) 06:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Apart from the Telegraph obituary in the external links and the book sources already added, there are obituaries in the Times here, the Independent here and an entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography  as well as articles and coverage about her while still alive, for example: this and this. All of the above would be considered reliable sources.  FlowerpotmaN &middot;( t ) 11:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: The cited references in the Times, Independent, Telegraph obits all seem to me to clearly support the notability of the subject. (Msrasnw (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC))
 * Keep, per Flowerpotman. More than sufficient coverage to pass WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY and the significant improvements to the sourcing of this article by Riffic, Flowerpotman, and Msrasnw. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable as above. Clinched by ODNB. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2011 (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.