Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tine Furler

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 Delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tine Furler[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't confirm notability Boleyn (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After reading WP:ARTIST: has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition. After six years, the mentioned exhibitons still doesn't have articles . --Ben Ben (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is an argument from WP:ATA#Surmountable problems, just as is the nomination. Also, notability is not defined by the existence of articles on Wikipedia. Unscintillating (talk) 12:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you have a source that shows the notability of the mentioned exhibitions, please add it to the article.--Ben Ben (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Prague Biennale now has an article. PamD 21:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Now, only the has been a substantial part of remains.--Ben Ben (talk) 22:04, 20 January 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, Courcelles 01:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on what has been found so far, there's a good probability that more can be found with work. A problem with large scale nominations is that nobody can keep up with the work. necessary. It take half a minute seconds to nominate, at least half an hour to properly investigate in simple cases. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Probability? Isn't that WP:ATA#CRYSTAL? Here is a list of her exhibitons, from the website of her Galerie Hammelehle und Ahrens: [1]. Could you say if this generates notabiliby?--Ben Ben (talk) 19:28, 25 January 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, MBisanz ^talk 03:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Ben Ben. This individual is relatively unknown, and I can't find any high-quality secondary sources. Stubbleboy 03:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see in-depth coverage in reliable sources (I looked at English and German language web pages). There's still no independent sources in the article or listed in this AfD. Being one of dozens of artists at a biennial isn't being "a substantial part of a significant exhibition". There are a lot of passing references and stuff like this[2][3] which indicate she has some visibility in the art world, but she doesn't yet meet notability standards. Maybe in a couple of years if she has more high profile solo shows she'll be notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:22, 30 January 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.