Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelica Garnett (2nd nomination)

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. Cbrown1023 talk 01:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Angelica Garnett

Angelica Garnett (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Only claim to fame is her parents and aunt. No sources Dalejenkins 19:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I disagree, that is not her only claim to fame. Surely the fact that she is a British author and artist is a better claim to fame. That may not be intrinsically notable, but as a member of the Bloomsbury Group I think she's notable enough to deserve an article. As User:Capitalistroadster pointed out on the first AfD, she won a Joe Ackerley Memorial Prize for Autobiography in 1984 for Deceived with Kindness: A Bloomsbury Childhood. No sources is not a reason to delete, although I'd agree the article clearly needs some improvement. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 20:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but needs work. The problem here is not that there are no references, the problem is that they are not obviously placed in a department called references. Alf^Photoman 00:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• keep the book is sufficiently n for an article of its own; essentially all the major figures in the Bloomsbury Group are N in their own right, as one of the most famous aspects of 20th century literature and social history.DGG 00:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The Ackerley prize is significant enough to suggest notability; the rest of the bio, although unsourced at the moment, is more than enough. I've added a link verifying the Ackerley. -- BPMullins | Talk 00:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm a little unclear on the notability of this Ackerly prize. Not that prize amounts are automatically tied to notability, but this was something set up by the guy's sister and the prize is 1,000 pounds and a silver pen? Is this award really considered notable enough to hang Garnett's article on? Otto4711 08:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Many notable prizes give you a tin medal and a warm handshake with an invitation to please pay for your own meal at the awarding ceremony.... Alf^Photoman 12:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Are there multiple independent reliable sources that attest to the claim that the award is the most prestigous of its type in England? I looked at a few dozen sources and could not find any that mentioned the award in that context or much beyond any context other than being trivially noted in articles about various recipients. Otto4711 15:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Her article, the Bloomsbury Group article and a cursory look through a number of online sources don't indicate to me that Garnett was anything more than a tangential part of the group so I'm not finding a keep argument on that basis very persuasive. I am also not finding sourcing indicating that the Ackerley prize she won is of a calibre that asserting her notability on the basis of winning it is similarly unpersuasive to me. Her notability seems to be almost exclusively a product of her relatives' and notability is non-transferable. Otto4711 16:46, 14 March 2007 (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.