Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lin Evola

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.

Lin Evola

The result was Keep as per the positive consensus raised in this discussion. While the nominator's frustration with the quality of the article (at the time of its nomination) and the potential WP:COI issues is understandable, it would appear that Green Cardamom's thoughtful observations regarding whether the article meets this website's editorial standards would outweigh the shakier aspects of the article and its history. In cases like this, it is advisable to attempt to edit the article into a satisfactory shape rather than call for it to be thrown it away. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article appears to be written by an editor who is working behalf of the subject. After examining the content of the article, the sources the article relies upon and searching for more sources, it is clear that the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. The subject is an artist whose only apparent notability is for melting down guns donated by Police Departments and taking the remains to build a "Peace Angel". Besides the fact that this is not an original idea, her Peace Angel piece received scant and unsustained coverage. While this art display might be notable in the future, it doesn't appear to be notable now, and neither is the creator.

Just a sample of some of the problems with the article/sources:

The lead reads Art historians have declared her work to be "on the level of Leonardo da Vinci, Joseph Beuys and Robert Rauschenberg -- Lenoardo da Vinci? "Citation needed" is a little understated.
The source reverie-arts is an art gallery schedueled to be opened in 2014
Another problem source is is the subject's bio page on the Huffington Post
The article Lin Evola: The Arms Trade Treaty is written by the subject from the Huffington Post. Ignoring the fact-checking that this article possibly received, this is is essentially a primary source. An entire section from the article is sourced by this reference.

To summarize, this is a poorly sourced "press release" biography that has multiple issues. We should delete and ask the primary contributor to work on this in their sandbox and submit the article over at WP:AFC. ---Mylysol (talk) 23:45, 20 October 2013 (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/2013 October 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 23:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has clear issues. However it's a notable artist based on WP:ARTIST #4 and WP:GNG. According to these example sources (NY Times, Blacktie Magazine, CS Monitor, LA Times) she makes these 30' tall (and smaller ones) "peace angel" sculptures made out of melted guns and nuclear weapon casings, which have a classical look (thus the comparison to Renaissance art). There seems to be lots of news coverage about it. They are held in Presidential art collections (Bill Clinton),[1] displayed at the United Nations where she was honored,[2] displayed at One Police Plaza.[3]-- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Green Cardamom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as Green Cardamom has pointed out, significant coverage independent reliable soruces exists to establish notability. Problems with promotional language can be resolved through editting. - Whpq (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2013 (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.