Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mernet Larsen

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The result was nomination withdrawn due to sourcing improvements. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mernet Larsen

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

WP:BLP of an artist, without adequate reliable sourcing to support it. Of the five sources here, one is a blog, and three are the websites of institutions with which she has a direct professional association — making them primary sources which cannot confer notability. One source here (#4) looks decent, but (a) one valid source isn't enough to get a person over WP:GNG by itself if all the rest of the sourcing around it is inadequate, and (b) it isn't actually supporting any content that would constitute a genuine notability claim under WP:ARTIST, but merely a single descriptive statement about her style. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be sourced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 15:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 15:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 15:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no real indication of significance. DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the press clippings listed towards the bottom of http://www.jamescohan.com/artists/mernet-larsen are enough to demonstrate a pass of WP:GNG. They include in-depth coverage of her art from the NY Times, LA Times, and Huffington Post, by three different critics. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Monograph about her work is significant coverage when supported by NYTs LA Times, etc.-- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After adding references and monograph, and confirming that work is in the collection of two major museums, the subject now meets wp:ARTIST Mduvekot (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, this is now much better referenced than it was. Consider this withdrawn. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 4 February 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.