Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rita Grosse-Ruyken

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Grosse-Ruyken[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG, plain selfpromo The Banner talk 13:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to meet WP:GNG. The book Transformationen probably constitutes a reliable source: it includes work by art historians Hans Wichmann[1] and Friedrich Piel[2] and academic Aloys Goergen[3]. She also has coverage in New York Times[4], which is not something a run-of-the-mill German artist gets, as well as in this applied art magazine[5], newspapers[6][7] and some briefer coverage[8][9] --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And 620 standard Google hits and 0 (zero) on Google News. The Banner talk 16:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your point being...? --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That there is not enough evidence of her being notable. A few links, often based on press releases, is not enough. The Banner talk 12:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Colapeninsula's analysis looks to be right on target. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 09:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is purely factual. The artist has exhibitions recorded on the page in at least 5 countries and in multiple mediums, one of which she is pioneering. Seems notable and well supported.--User:Imhr — Preceding undated comment added 14:00, 15 March 2014 (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.