Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Priest

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont)

Sandra Priest

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

cannot verify claim of international artist, local news, and notability not assured from work detailed. As WP:NARTIST appears WP:TOOSOON, combined with obvious promo WP:SPA / undisclosed paid editing socks Widefox; talk 15:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She does not seem to satisfy WP:ARTIST at this time. Although there is coverage, it seems restricted to her local newspapers. I think we'd need to see something a bit more national before she qualified for an article. There are a few hits at Highbeam, but I'm not sure they're the same person. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient -significant- coverage. Mduvekot (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Artist's works are covered in numerous national publications and have been exhibited across U.S. Coverage is not "restricted to her local newspapers".[1][2][3][4][5] (works are even subject to some political controversy/scandal in Topeka Kansas [6][7][8]) -- dsprc ^[talk] 19:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Issues with SPA are independent of notability and may be addressed separately. Zero evidence provided of paid editing (which is fine and allowed) or sockpuppetry. -- dsprc ^[talk] 19:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it did not take much searching to find reliable sources. Passes GNG exactly as User:Dsprc says.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia. But just in case the article should unaccountably be kept, I rmeoved the worst of the promotion. DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are loads of sources and information along with it, but simply nothing actually insinuating Wikipedia article, there's nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 03:49, 8 June 2016 (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.