Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Dunn

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 00:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Dunn

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

Fails WP:ARTIST, no significant exhibitions, critical attention or works in major collections. TheLongTone (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is an advert. I googled her and it brought back nothing of note. I read the article and the refs aren't up to much and I read her own home page where she is selling herself as a portrait artist for animals etc. Szzuk (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA biography; multiple searches turned up nothing on the subject (much more on an author of the same name). Nor does the commission from the Welsh Pony and Cob Society establish notability. AllyD (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Some of the redlinks may be the result of mis-formatting. Nevertheless, there is too much of WP:ADVERT about this for me to want to do work on that. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, bearing in mind she claims to have a painting now sitting in the Royal collection. She seems to have had a substantial career gap and it is conceivable that there is pre-internet coverage about her, so if the author wanted the article moved to a draft page to work on it further that may be a better solution. However, at the moment it is very adverty and not fit for Wikipedia's main article space. Sionk (talk) 12:49, 16 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.