Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ana Prvacki

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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Prvacki[edit]

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

If the single non-promotional source that mentions the subject does so in the context of her handing out tissue paper soaked in her saliva, I rather doubt she meets WP:ARTIST. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Utterly unconvincing referencing, mostly self-sourced. Dahn (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The comments above are unconvincing. The article is not in very bad shape and has substantial third-party references. The newspaper article and this coverage together with the other sources should clear the notability bar. Sandstein 08:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's say the puffery in the SMH might count for something, but this? It's an explicitly commercial site doing promotions for art venues, in this case a museum. It may be "coverage", but it's certainly not independent. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Relist rationale: This is a BLP. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | chatter _ 18:01, 25 April 2012 (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.