Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clare Henry

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Henry[edit]

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

Puffed up article, not notable, just self-promotion Sheroddy (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (changed from Delete) no claim of notability in the article, WP:PROMO advert of just another art critic, Kraxler (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being chief art critic for two major publications is certainly a strong claim of notability, demonstrating stature in their field. The nominator's statement is absolute nonsense; there's no sign whatever of self-promotion, and only a few easily fixed moments of peacockery. Nom seems to be on a disturbingly Qworty-esque jihad regarding writers/critics; their deletion rationale makes no substantive arguments. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Being chief art critic for two major publications is certainly a strong claim of notability, demonstrating stature in their field." In principle, that's a tenable view, but would you care to say what guideline she would pass? Kraxler (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG. WP:CREATIVE (aka WP:JOURNALIST. WP:ANYBIO. And that's even without considering that she's a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll have a look at the guidelines in relation to this subject. FRSA is not inherently notable, I'm afraid. There must be thousands of them, and I've seen some being deleted, and some currently being here at AfD. It certainly adds up to ther things, though. Kraxler (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Obvious claims to notability, verified by at least one independent reliable source via the Herald Scotland article about her donations. Combined with other mentions, her cited writings, and it makes a good case that Mrs. Henry is "regarded as an important figure" in the art world, per WP:CREATIVE. Still would like to see more independent reliable refs added. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, there is enough here to support WP:JOURNALIST, WP:ANYBIO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not seeing any evidence supporting the nomination's claim that this is self-promotion. The article seems to have been created as part of an editathon and seems to be just the sort of article one would expect from such an event. The subject seems reasonably notable, as her activities appear in books such as A Companion to British Art: 1600 to the Present and Scottish Art Since 1960: Historical Reflections and Contemporary Overviews. Andrew D. (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have not looked closely at the sources, but her position as art critic for major newspapers, as well as her being Scotland's curator for their Venice Biennale pavillion denotes significant notability, IMHO.New Media Theorist (talk) 01:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons listed above, but also because the article was nominated for deletion by a new user User:Sheroddy who began nominating articles for deletion within their third edit. While I strongly believe that we should be bold this is maybe a bit too bold. Theredproject (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject of this article appears notable. Her work as art critic of The Herald (Glasgow) would seem to demonstrate notability as per WP:JOURNALIST. Her entry in Debretts also points towards many other achievements during her career as a creative professional. [1] Drchriswilliams (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've tidied up the article including noting that her "papers" are being held by the Glasgow School of Art. I cannot see why this was nominated. Victuallers (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2015 (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.