Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Loomis

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. Closing as keep, noting that the nominator has withdrawn their nomination. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Jennifer Loomis

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Jennifer Loomis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I do not think this article about a photographer meets WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. It has been tagged for notability since 2009. There is a link to an Associated Press article which does look like decent coverage and has three paragraphs about Loomis. There is a link to an archived article about an exhibition, which looks as if it could be a press release. There is a quote from a review of her book which I think may be the puff from the book cover (reference just says Review of Portraits of Pregnancy by Ricki Lake and Abby Epsiten, authors of Your Best Birth). I have found and added a recent interview but cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources. Tacyarg (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:BASIC - I have been working from a list of sources on her website, and have found more than trivial mentions of her and her work as a photographer in the San Francisco Chronicle (2004), The Los Angeles Times (2004), CBS News (2007), Time (2008), in addition to the Associated Press (2006); there is also a brief mention in The New York Times (2007) and coverage I cannot fully access in The Wall Street Journal (2005). Some of these sources also offer biographical and career information that could be incorporated into the article. Beccaynr (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Enough sources to pass WP:GNG and as per sources presented by Beecaynr and per below.
• https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-jun-19-et-netburn19-story.html, http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,1727691,00.html
• https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/style/tmagazine/15tbaby.html
• https://www.today.com/popculture/celebrities-make-pregnancy-seem-glamorous-wbna12466527
• https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/the-3-minute-interview-with-jennifer-loomis/
• http://seattlerefined.com/features/artistoftheweek/artist-of-the-week-jennifer-loomis
• https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB112372315198410490 Frigidpolarbear (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Most of the coverage demonstrated by Beccaynr and Frigidpolarbear appears sufficient to meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. VocalIndia (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep and Tacyarg this is why WP:BEFORE is a very good idea. I looked at how the article was before you nominated it for deletion, and yeah, it was pretty marginal. It's now not remotely marginal, not going to be deleted, and your nomination statement is so at odds with the current state of the article that it's painful to see the disconnect now, EVEN THOUGH when you nominated it this article was indeed a pretty "meh" BLP. I suggest you withdraw the nomination, because the added sources demonstrate that indeed, Ms. Loomis is exactly the sort of artist who should be profiled in Wikipedia. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Withdraw (as nominator). Thanks to other editors for finding the sources which I did not find in my WP:BEFORE. Tacyarg (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

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.