Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annabeth Robinson

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, or "weak keep" if you prefer. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Annabeth Robinson

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography of a virtual artist who does not appear to meet WP:CREATIVE. As mentioned on the talk page, a few sources (i.e., from Google Scholar) that contain brief mentions about the work, but likely not enough substantive information to meet WP:GNG. Much of the current sourcing is YouTube and primary sources, and significant amounts of the content (i.e., the "Works" section) appear to exaggerate trivial information. All of that aside, the article asserts notability based on the fact that the artist creates art on Second Life, but there is nothing substantive to indicate if/why this work is notable. Kinu ^t/_c 04:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep: The article is being created by students doing a project. After initially thinking this was a bad thing I have realised that it is not and have been trying to encourage them (via the talk page) to edit it in a more encyclopaedic way. The article has gone off in completely the wrong direction, and I did ponder putting it up for AfD myself, but the really weird thing is that she does get a reasonable number of hits in Google Scholar and Google Books (most of them under her pseudonym, AngryBeth Shortbread, so I have added a {{Find sources}} for that). There are sources they could use to demonstrate at least some notability. Notability is still borderline but not as bad as you would think from reading the article. Verifiability is also a big issue. If kept, the article should be cut down to a few relevant paragraphs and built up again from the RS sources. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Daniel - our notability policies do struggle in the virtual world. Johnbod (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete without prejudice to reposting an reliably sourced article. Try as I might, I cannot find any coverage on GNews, GBooks or GScholar which is anything more than incidental. If it stays, the article needs to be fundamentally rewritten - wikipedia articles are not supposed to be rehashes of the subjects' own CVs. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am disturbed to see that none of the people working on this article has come here to even try to defend it despite ample opportunity. Perhaps the project is over and the students have lost interest. This is a pity, as engaging in discussion about appropriate sourcing and verifiability could have been a more valuable learning experience for them than writing the article itself.
Anyway, it now seems that nobody loves this article. I am almost tempted to switch to a delete vote, just to put it out of its misery, but notability should be the deciding factor here so I will stick with my very weak keep. Unless anybody has any better ideas, I still propose to turn it into a stub with just a couple of verifiable paragraphs if it is kept. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The google scholar hits are worth considering. One in particular, [1] says "the ubiquitous Metalab Whiteboard by AngryBeth Shortbread used everywhere in Second Life", which is probably enough to indicate notability. The others, such as [2] seem to suypport that she is a well-known artist there. DanielRigel and I have been making suggestions, unfortunately, the response has not been particularly constructive. I suspect the project ahas been submitted and the student(s) see no need to deal with it further, which is a shame. Will need very drastic editing, but I think is keepable. Based on the talk page, there may be additional similar bios which areworth hunting down and checking. It may be too late now, but I should have worked more actively to get someone from WM UK to try to get in touch with them. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep no prejudice to renom in 6 months.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.