Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie Holland

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--Ymblanter (talk) 09:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Holland[edit]

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

Contested prod, which I was too late to endorse. It fails to indicate notability. Laun chba ller 19:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.

Delete Coverage and exhibitions do not rise to Notable level. Wkharrisjr (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inclusion in the BP Portrait and Royal Society of Portrait Painters exhibitions does not imply WP:ARTIST notability; The press coverage of the latter was triggered by its subject rather than the artist. AllyD (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. When it was prodded, the article was very poorly sourced. I spent some effort tracking down as much press as I could find and adding it to the article. When I was done I felt it was enough of an improvement to make notability a debatable issue (rather than just not having any) and deprod the article. But I'm not certain it's enough to make a clear case for WP:ARTIST. And I think what you see is what you get: there isn't some hidden trove of sources missing from the article that would demonstrate notability more convincingly. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe Natalie Holland is notable. She has been exhibited at the National Portrait Gallery and was short-listed for the BP Portrait Award. Additionally her work has been featured in The Independent and The Telegraph. She was rated number 3 in Sally Perry's list of the six best portrait artists. Her portrait Annunciation was selected to appear in the Royal Institute of Oil Painters Annual Exhibition.World Indexer (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per World Indexer. Exhibitions and coverage in significant media outlets. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per David Eppstein, except I'm verging more on the keep side of neutral. The exhibitions in themselves don't meet WP:ARTIST, and the press coverage is triggered by the subject, not the artist. But it all adds up to a weak keep.Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong speedy delete per A7. 108.218.12.104 (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 00:19, 30 November 2013 (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.