Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Morgan Puett

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) f eminist 15:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J. Morgan Puett[edit]

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

Highly promotional BLP with no sources; old enough that it missed our filters; possible that it might survive if we had some actual sources and removed all the NPOV violations (peacock words, etc.). Orange Mike | Talk 00:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree the article is currently poorly written, however, a quick search on the "news" link above shows significant coverage by major publications: The New York Times (several feature articles), Architectural Digest, Creative Time Reports, ArtNews, New York Magazine, Huffington Post, ArtForum. A quick search on Google Books shows inclusion in numerous books by credible publishers, and several citations on Google Scholar. The artist is notable, it is the article that needs improvement. Netherzone (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a clear Keep. I stopped counting Google Book refs at 15. Here's a profile of her by Creative Time, which is an organization that is about as cutting-edge/snotty/highbrow/contemporary as you can get in the contemporary art world. Needs a major rewrite, but she is clearly notable.104.163.150.250 (talk) 05:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I added 18 or so refs, and discovered that she is in the collection of the Tate Museum in London, and just last year was a Guggenheim Fellow. The article did look bad when nominated! However it is time to withdraw the nomination I think.104.163.150.250 (talk) 06:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article could be edited to flow better, but should be in the Keep category. I added some references, as well as details about her work on the RN patch, which apparently was a low-budget, easy solution that helped re-brand RNs in the workplace. It's been in at least one book and seems to make this artist more noteworthy. Westendgirl (talk) 08:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

snow keep & thanks to 104.163.150.250 --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2017 (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.