Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fiona graham-mackay

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 03:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona graham-mackay

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

Fails WP:ARTIST; no works in major collections &c&c. Article unreferenced & smells to me of copyvio. TheLongTone (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources to verify notability per WP:BASIC/WP:ANYBIO/WP:ARTIST were not found. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found multiple RS about her role as a portraitist in the UK, especially her role as a painter of the British Royal Family. Added the sources to the article, rewrote it and removed copyvio issues. Article passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - thanks to the efforts of Megalibrarygirl. Obviously notable.--Ipigott (talk) 07:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's actually nothing particularly better for WP:CREATIVE, none of the necessary museums connections, nothing else here. Sourced, of course, but still questionable thus delete. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How are Reliable Sources questionable? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article as it now stands does show notability - being commissioned to produce official portraits of members of the British Royal Family is notable. Neiltonks (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, that is essentially inherited notability. Secondly I don't think the lump of paint on canvas in question is an official portrait, merely one privately commissioned by the Windssors. I'd describe the (distressingly bad) portrait of whatever her name is in the National Portrait Gallery as an official portrait. What is it about royalty that makes people produce such shocking paintings??TheLongTone (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WP:HEY applies. Cavarrone 15:42, 4 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.