Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie Jeremijenko

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 --JForget 00:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Jeremijenko

This has the appearance of a vanity page, and in any case the subject does not meet WP:BIO or any other notability guideline that might apply. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep significant coverage of the artist and her work. Result of a 2 second google search. That says, it's in dire need of clean-up but the appearance of a vanity page is not reason for deletion _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 21:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not a vanity article, although a clean-up and better sourcing are certainly needed here. A fairly unusual career and I think notability can be established both per WP:BIO and probably WP:PROF as a notable artist/designer and engineer. TheGoogleNews results cited by the Busy Bee are quite impressive already: 157 hits, most with nontrivial coverage related to her [1] . GoogleScholar also returns a substantial number of hits[2] as does GoogleBooks, which yields 132 hits[3]. Several of them give detailed biographical coverage, such as this [4], and this [5], and where many more provide nontrivial coverage of her. Salon.com had an in-depth feature article about her [6]. Other examples of in-depth coverage include a review in New York Times [7]. More than enough here to satisfy WP:BIO. Suggest the nomination be withdrawn. Nsk92 (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per above. I have to say, I don't understand this AfD: she's shown at MASSMoCA, the Whitney Museum, Smithsonian Cooper-Hewitt; she's a Rockefeller Fellow (among other achievements). This satisfies notability as an artist and an academic. freshacconcispeaktome 00:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd also like to point out that "Vanity is a potentially defamatory term that should be avoided in deletion discussions" (from WP:GTD). I've done this in the past myself and it's worth mentioning now. freshacconcispeaktome 00:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs some work, - a reference section, some clarity, otherwise it's fine...Modernist (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable as an artist by our normal standard. the article certainly does need a sharp trimming though. DGG (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some impressive exhibit involvement is mentioned. Those venues don't accept just anyone off the street. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 05:00, 21 May 2008 (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.