Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alyson hunter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. John254 00:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alyson hunter

Alyson hunter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete as doesn't meet WP:BIO. Google search provides a clear idea that this person is not notable at all. Fails at WP:NOTE too. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 14:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep listing an article for deletion 4 minutes after creation seems very like a violation of WP:BITE. Catchpole (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - WP:BITE is a behavioral guideline, not a policy. Yes, it is a good guideline, but has no bearing in regards to an AFD vote (although it's fine to be noted). Is your keep vote based only on BITE?Gwynand (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - With due respect to Catchpole's effort for keeping some articles that lacks on many major policies of WP, I want to say, of course WP:BITE is to encourage newcomers but that doesn't mean we'll start keeping low profiles articles. Newcomer may request for an article instead of creating one that doesn't meet WP core policies. And it is really unfortunate to receive your bites at almost each of my nominations in the name of supporting newcomers. Cheers. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Further Speedy deleting good faith articles within minutes is contray to WP:BITE. Nominating for AfD is not. Also, per Gwynand, could you please elaborate on your Keep rationale? Pedro :  Chat  15:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Her work is on display at the National Portrait Gallery [1] and Museum of London [2] and has been purchased by the UK Government [3]. Her work has been exhibited across 3 continents. [4]. The article requires clean-up not deletion. Catchpole (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    Linking to notable things that she is/was involved with does not make someone notable. Please produce, independant, 3rd party reviews of her work, or news articles about her. If there are just links to the places her work was shown and her own resume, then she still comes no where near WP:NOTE.Gwynand (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Clearly fails WP:NOTE. If she is "now considered to be a major voice in modern poetry" as the article suggests, then some secondary sources would come up. There is nothing however, in a few different searches I did, including google news. Gwynand (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Now described purely as an artist. Johnbod (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've re-written and referenced the article, following Catchpole's excellent research. Hunter's most important period seems to be the 1970s and 1980s, and material dating from that time is often not on the internet unfortunately. Her presence in collections shows that she was seen as of note. I've omitted the poetry claim, as I can't find any validity for that. Tyrenius (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: User:Feministart, nice work done on this article. Could you please add information on her achievement or invention? This article claims that she invented (with a polite tone as employed) an unusual technique of etching with a chemically modified photographic image. It would be really nice if you can provide a third party reference supporting this point. Cheers. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 16:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The lead does not say she invented it (though she may have done - that is not clear in the ref, so is not claimed), only that she employed it. The ref says that she used it. "Employ" is a synonym for "use" simply on stylistic grounds and to minimise use of the original on copyvio grounds. Her use of the technique is already cited in the main text, which the lead summarises. The lead has now been ref'd as well. Tyrenius (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think it meets WP:BIO now.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Article is sourced, indicates notability. Edward321 (talk) 06:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Current version satisfies WP:BIO on permanent collections alone. Johnbod (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. - Modernist (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2008 (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.