Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paulette Phillips

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paulette Phillips[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an artist. While there's enough substance here that she likely would be eligible to keep a properly sourced article, the problem in this instance is that it's resting almost entirely on primary (own website, websites of galleries with which she's directly affiliated) and bloggy/YouTubey unreliable sources. Only one reference here, Canadian Art (#4), counts for anything toward the meeting of WP:GNG — and even that source isn't substantively about her, but merely contains a two-sentence namecheck of her within a list of capsule reviews of several art shows. Being able to primary-source her existence isn't what gets an artist into Wikipedia — real media coverage is, but there isn't any of that here. Delete unless the sourcing can be utterly overhauled. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is grounds for deletion per WP:AfD. If sources exist, and the article isn't unduly promotional or otherwise terrible, and WP:BLP is met, then I see no reason to delete. (On the other hand, I've not yet seen the sources myself.) Colapeninsula (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly true that an article can be kept at AFD if improved sources can be shown to exist, without regard to whether they've already been added to the article or not — but what you're missing is that somebody has to actually demonstrate hard evidence that the improved sources do exist. We don't keep unsourced or primary sourced BLPs at AFD just because somebody suggests that improved sources might exist, if nobody actually shows any hard evidence that improved sources do exist. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quick google, google books and google scholar searches show plenty of third-party articles, essays and books about Phillips, enough to satisfy WP:GNG and her exhibition record, easily verified, satisfies WP:ARTIST. The Canadian Art reference already there is enough for WP:BLP, the rest can be tagged for further sources. freshacconci talk to me 18:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per freshacconci --Theredproject (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE: plenty of easily-accessible sources exists online. I'd like to see somebody work on it to improve it in any case. Bearian (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2015 (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.