Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Fuller (artist)

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Fuller (artist)

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

The quality of the sourcing, 7 of 9 references are from the artist's own sites, certainly does ring alarm bells about general notability/promotional tone. Minichoan (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A couple of pieces of her public works have been noted in guidebooks as landmarks or points of interest. See her big shoe, and her big shovel. Behind a paywall but the summary shows that a sculpture has been exhibited at the Skokie Northshore Sculpture Park. This paywalled article has no summary bu the google summary from the search result reads " Chicago artist Victoria Fuller (in the shoe) tells City Museum visitors how she designed and constructed her ...". Looking for things not paywalled, there is this item. -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - There is a 3 page bio here and most of the information not sourced and from what is sourced, 7 of 9 of the references are from the artist's own sites. That doesn't leave much. Minichoan (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As nominator, your nomination is already taken as a recommendation to delete. The current state of an article does not determine notability. That the referencing needs improvement can be done through normal editting. -- Whpq (talk) 03:54, 22 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:04, 24 August 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WD. She looks as though she could just about squeeze past with the content that is there, but the article is full of coatracking and name-dropping, and so reads like an advert. It needs a serious copyedit at best. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - tone and content can be fixed by editting, and is not a good reason for deletion. What is your position based on notability since you seem to believe she could just about squeak by? -- Whpq (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would be easy enough to reduce it to a reasonable size, but there's no point if she is not notable. I see no works in major museums, no major awards, no publications. The reviews see to be those for her work as part of a group show, or to be a mere listing of an exhibit. It is possible that a more modest article might not have been noticed for deletion. but content such as which apartments she has lived in for a borderline notable person shows a clear and unambiguous promotional intent; tho we go by results rather than intent, when the result matches the intent here. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 18:26, 9 September 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.