Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beatrice M. Mady

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beatrice M. Mady

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

Sourced but doesn't seem to meet the notability guidelines at WP:ARTIST. Autobiographical. Zeus^u|c 18:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk) 18:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication in article she meets notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with above, based on earlier version of article, but there are sources (required some digging), reliable sources, a review in the NY Times in 1996, she exhibits many places, professor, but the article in its previous state was essentially a resume, possibly written by someone who does not understand how Wikipedia works? If keep, my vote is a weak keep; depends on discretion of admin making decision; my sense is she barely meets the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She fails WP:ARTIST. We've got brief, run of the mill coverage of a local artist in local media. Plus a single sentence in the New York Times, which does not constitute a "review". No major exhibitions, no holdings in museum collections, no coverage in books, no descriptions of her as a major influence on other artists, or as creator of a new genre. In sum, no significant coverage at all. Just a collection of passing mentions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'delete as noticed above, she does not have a full review in the NYT , but just a mention. A full review would have gone a long way towards notability. DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 24 June 2014 (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.