Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camilla Connolly

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 per consensus and as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Camilla Connolly[edit]

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

Lots of ghits to art websites, but I don't think any of them are that reliable - most I think are either self-published or related parties. Seems to also have a "troubled past" that has been reported on a reliable news website, but isn't mentioned in the wikipedia article. More than happy for it to stay if those who know art more than me think that she is notable enough, and can supply suitable references. The-Pope (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 14:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some success in open competitions [1], doesn't meet WP:ARTIST. Not enough third party coverage to meet WP:N.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable.--Grahame (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2010 (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.