Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadia Sirry

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 no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Sirry[edit]

[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)

This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. The article consists mainly of the artist's CV with a few weak references. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the "Acquisitions" listed, if sourced, might satisfy notability ... but they aren't sourced. PamD 07:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Under acquisitions, it lists the "Egyptian Museum of Modern Art", which may be the Gezira Center for Modern Art or perhaps the Museum of Modern Art in Egypt, also known as the "Al-Nasr Museum of Modern Art".[1] They don't seem to list their collections online. Vexations (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete the sources don't really jump out at you, the collections cannot be sourced and the article itself is a big CV. There aren't that many good reasons to keep. --- Possibly ☎ 02:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Survived previous AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:58, 3 November 2021 (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.