Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joan Janet Bayliss

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. Geschichte (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Janet Bayliss[edit]

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

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

There's quite a weird history involving the editor of this article and the other one I'm nominating for deletion, involving single-purpose accounts with a highly promotional bent, suspected copyright violation, a request for undeletion by Artcadet, and block evasion ... but be that as it may, I can't find any evidence that these artists have ever had their work recognised in national art galleries, let alone important state ones, so they are not notable enough for Wikipedia. The creator of these articles was in good standing when they wrote them, so they can't be deleted under criterion for speedy deletion G5, and this deletion process has the most teeth, so here I am. Graham87 07:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following page was created by the same user and has many of the same problems, so I'm nominating it here:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no evidence of notability of the subject of this AfD nor of May O'Neill, the secondary AfD nomination here. Their works are not held in AustralianState galleries or the National Gallery of Australia. Nor can I find evidence of prizes they have won and reviews of their exhibitions. Also, the article's creator has admitted they have been blocked, recently created a second account and sought undeletion of another bio via User talk:MurielMary#Undeletion of Mary M. Wigg. Oronsay (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The page does feel like a LinkedIn profile. I could not find a SINGLE article via a ProQuest news database search of Australian and New Zealand sources. And only this single entry on TROVE. Fails GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabrils (talk • contribs) 06:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything even remotely constituting sigcov for Bayliss, nor can I find anything for May O'Neill. If someone can find sources, more than happy to change my vote. But my search has yielded nothing. Samsmachado (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Inclusion in the collection of a historic house somewhere (that is not notable enough for its own article) is not good enough for WP:ARTIST #4d, winning your town's local watercolor competition is not good enough for 4c, and nothing else looks even close. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:10, 21 November 2020 (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.