Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This is the Public Domain


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. A possible Merge can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 07:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

This is the Public Domain

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG UtherSRG (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Law, United States of America,  and California. UtherSRG (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Incorrectly tagged at this point. Sources in the article already demonstrate that subject meets GNG, but here's more &mdash;siro&chi;o 22:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * added these additional sources to article &mdash;siro&chi;o 23:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Sources aren't very strong (hard to evaluate book mentions without you know like reading the book, but are theses evidence of notability?) but you could probably just about scrape together a claim. Still, even if you disagree, a merge to the artist's page is better than deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Establishes GNG through sources recently provided, although work is still needed to improve it. Let'srun (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Amy Balkin. Apart from the claim that this is an art project, the article uses a lot of words to say very little. Walt Yoder (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep per siroxo, although I think a merge as a new L3 heading under Amy Balkin could also be fine. Without any real effort on my part to screen for the "best" sources, just grabbing three at semi-random, we've got e.g. about 150 words in this magazine article, more than 100 Spanish words in this book (preview cut off), at least 170 words in this one, and all seem fairly information-dense. This seems comfortably within the WP:GNG and in particular all sources seem to meet the WP:SIGCOV requirement to address[] the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.. To the extent we're just haggling over whether to merge, I'd say that the unique properties of a person vs. a place, which affect things like coordinates, categories, etc., would militate in favor of keeping the articles separate. -- Visviva (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2023 (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.