Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandy Boursicot
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. If non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources turns up at a later date, it could be taken to deletion review to consider re-creation. MastCell Talk 02:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mandy Boursicot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Simple and obvious failure to meet WP:BIO. Victoriagirl 22:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rewrite I don't like deleting articles for non-notability or failure to meet guidelines Pheonix15 23:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. In its current form this meets CSD A7, no attempt to establish notability. Couldn't find any reliable sources on a google search. If the article can be rewritten and reliably sourced, then maybe. - Zeibura (Talk) 23:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rewrite This webpage has a preview on the artist's paintings. Moreover, a google search shows up quite a number of hits for this subject as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While I don't put much faith in ghits when discussing AfDs, I will comment that I don't find the number particularly high. More to the point, the search doesn't indicate that the artist has been "the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject", as called for in WP:BIO. I'd argue that the link provided, a promo piece in a magazine devoted to the galleries of British Columbia, Alberta, Washington and Oregon, does not match this description. Victoriagirl 16:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and add sources. --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete My
voterecommendation. Victoriagirl 16:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Hello! Just two quick points or maybe even more like questions, but anyway, I think that your nomination sufficiently indicates that you "vote" to delete the article. Also, unless I'm mistaken, I thought we don't look at these as "votes"? Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the note. It was my intention to clarify things. In my opinion, a nomination is not a vote or even a recommended course of action - rather a starting point for the discussion. While I realize that the nominator is nominating an an article for deletion, I have been involved in many AfD discussions in which the nominator has, eventually, decided to recommend that the the article under debate be kept... or rewritten... or merged. You are correct, of course, that I should not be using the word 'vote' (though I think this is quite common in AfD discussions) - the bolded words are really to be considered courses of action. So, again, in the interests of clarity, my recommendation is simple deletion. Victoriagirl 17:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Victoriagirl, thank you for the reply and clarification. I'm still learning some of the finer aspects of AfDs (part of the reason why I entered the adopt-a-user program in which an admin "adopted" me) and your reply is helpful in that regard. Have an enjoyable afternoon! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the note. It was my intention to clarify things. In my opinion, a nomination is not a vote or even a recommended course of action - rather a starting point for the discussion. While I realize that the nominator is nominating an an article for deletion, I have been involved in many AfD discussions in which the nominator has, eventually, decided to recommend that the the article under debate be kept... or rewritten... or merged. You are correct, of course, that I should not be using the word 'vote' (though I think this is quite common in AfD discussions) - the bolded words are really to be considered courses of action. So, again, in the interests of clarity, my recommendation is simple deletion. Victoriagirl 17:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello! Just two quick points or maybe even more like questions, but anyway, I think that your nomination sufficiently indicates that you "vote" to delete the article. Also, unless I'm mistaken, I thought we don't look at these as "votes"? Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - In my review I found a lot of hits, but they were all similar gallery hits for rather common stills paintings, posters, etc. Should we have articles on all artists? Maybe, but it seems like a standard of notability should be achieved prior entering an article; currently I don't think this artist has done that. I found no secondary sources that would identify this artist as such. --Storm Rider (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2007 (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.