Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marina Amaral (2nd nomination)

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. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Amaral

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

illustrating one unremarkable publication insufficient to establish notability Sirlanz 18:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Sirlanz has withdrawn this Afd, see comment below.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This was already sent to AfD once and there's no valid deletion rationale. (I wrote this article.) The nominator's edit history shows they're taking issue with me, so I can only assume (since this AfD is sloppily-done) that this is a bad-faith nomination. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - too soon after last discussion for a new one, and nominator doesn't indicate anything to explain why it needs to be reevaluated again so soon(or at all) WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep beyond the procedural reasons listed above, the subject is entirely notable. WP:BEFORE would have shown that and prevented this AFD. I did a short search myself and was able to add three new references (Artsy, Deutche Welle, Jerusalem Post) about her new project colouring archival images of Auschwitz prisoners. She is doing unique and interesting work, and getting lots and lots of RS coverage for it. Which is to say: the coverage clearly exists to establish GNG, so we need not ever do an AFD for her again. Pinging Sirlanz to consider closing this waste of time. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with another ping to Sirlanz as they've edited since, maybe missed it --valereee (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG, plenty of sources available that discuss Amaral and her work over a number of years, article reflects this. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies in respect of the 2nd nomination process. This is the first time I've attempted an AfD where it turned out it was not a first and the process was new to me. As soon as the 2nd status return appeared, I was inclined to reverse out of it but could not find the way of achieving that, so I figured it had to stay. Nevertheless, I started the process convinced the subject could not possibly meet notability as only one published work was referenced in which the subject played only a minor role and there was no source suggesting the subject had any particular prominence in the field. It is all the more surprising that the article survived AfD the first time round and remained in this poor condition. There has been such improvement now, so I'm content that policy is now met and have no objection to its remaining. The encyclopaedia stands the beneficiary. sirlanz 02:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Definitely satisfies WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:ARTIST. (links--[1], [2], [3], etc,)--PATH SLOPU 14:05, 4 April 2019 (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.