Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phyllida Barlow

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The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phyllida Barlow[edit]

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

Delete. Notability is not established in accordance with the general notability guidelines or topical notability guidelines for academics or artists. Notability is additionally not inherited. Cind.amuse 09:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. I appreciate the participation in this discussion. There are clear references to support this article. I will add these sources to the article as external links. Again, thank you. Cind.amuse 00:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These were easy to find: The Independent, The Guardian, Artinfo article about the 2007 Hamlyn Award winners. See also multiple Google Books results. Added to the article already cited, notability is clear enough. --Michig (talk) 11:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets general notability guidelines. Peter E. James (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of stuff that is easy to find - distinguished exhibitions etc. Johnbod (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously. user:Cindamuse seems to be waging an extremely ill advised personal campaign against me, (NOTE: I AM NOT BEING DISRUPTIVE AND I AM NOT VANDALISING ANYTHING) and disrupting wikipedia by nominating obvious articles such as this for deletion. You might wonder where the perfectly good article on her notable daughter Florence Peake - that has also been deleted, despite being notable. Flying Fische (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Um, this is the only article of yours that I have nominated for deletion, obviously in error. If I was waging a war against you, I certainly wouldn't have rescued your Lil Tudor-Craig article from deletion. [1][2] If you take a look at your talk page, it is clear to see that there are shortfalls with your articles. That said, I really don't have time to follow behind, rescue, and clean up all your articles. It would really help if you could review the notability criteria along with the Manual of Style before creating articles. Doing that may result in fewer deletion notices on your talk page. Best regards, Cind.amuse 00:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
you might also like to have a look at the similarly pointless nomination of her mother-in-law Maeve Gilmore. Flying Fische (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2011 (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.