Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gina Heyer

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. Wifione ^Message 18:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Heyer

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

Non-notable artist. Another in a series of pages created as part of a campaign to promote a particular South Africa art gallery. References are either directly from that gallery or press releases created by them. Vrenator ^talk 14:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sticky PROD Doesn't have any reliable sources. Can an admin delete this AfD? Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't have any non-self-published sources now, but it may be possible to find some that may be usable to satisfy verifiability if not notability. For instance, I'd consider a university library record to be a reliable source for the fact that she earned a masters degree, but it says nothing about notability. AfD seems a clearer and more permanent way to test whether we should really have an article on her, rather than focusing our attention on the narrower and less interesting question of whether the article we do have meets our sourcing standard. So I'd prefer to keep the AfD open. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:ARTIST, WP:PROF, WP:GNG, or any other notability standard. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is clearly part of a coordinated WP:PROMOTION of an art gallery called Brundyn & Gonsalves by the WP:SPA account Tigerhewson, who has also created a number of other similar articles. The article on this particular individual makes no real claim for notability and is sourced only with personal web-pages. Informal searching turns up nothing on her outside of the usual web flotsam (LinkedIn, etc.). Uncontroversial delete. Most of the other pages created by this SPA seem to be in AfD too. Agricola44 (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

PS. This account seems to be under a current block for the above activities. Agricola44 (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2012 (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.