Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claire Morgan

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 keep. Colapeninsula's arguments pushes this to the "keep" side. However, West Eddy does have a point about it being too promotional but that can be fixed with normal editing. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Morgan[edit]

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

Article subject does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 11:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability found and even if it is notable, it is too promotional. West Eddy (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Existing references are either non-independent (Rollo gallery), in obscure online publications (Art Interview), or brief mentions (e.g. the ABC.es article which covers a group exhibition). But there's a bit more coverage available: substantial local newspaper article, and another from the other side of the world. Other online publications: Zeitgeist magazine and La Critique. She's also the subject of a exhibition catalog essays by Deborah Kermode and Canterbury Uni academic Darren Ambrose[1][2]. Also a lot of briefer mentions. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 18:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Available sources do not add up to extensive independent coverage. Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colapeninsula; multiple reliable sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has won notable awards.Red Hurley (talk) 08:55, 2 May 2012 (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.