Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fiona bowie

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. — TKD::Talk 05:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fiona bowie

Fiona bowie (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable artist. No sources provided, cannot verify; only relevant Google hit is her own website (which, curiously, isn't linked in this article). Article appears to be promotional. Realkyhick 19:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: Nomination withdrawn, move to keep. Numerous relevant and reliable sources have been provided and properly cited, and notability now seems to be apparent. Barring any objections, I ask that this discussion be administratively closed. Realkyhick 02:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources have been added to this page that dispute the above comment by Realkyhick. Relevant google hits provided. Bibliography added. Recent Exhibition History added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sliphost005 (talk • contribs) 20:29, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: I'm a bit curious as to how you came to that conclusion from the user name, but in any event the author is apparently a single-purpose account. Realkyhick 01:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Could it be perhaps that the name "Sliphost" actually appears in the article? Just a guess :) --WebHamster 10:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
You copied and pasted in some other site's words. That has been removed. Corvus cornix 21:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - The submitted references, although none of them give in-depth reviews on her work, do demonstrate that her work has been included in various exhibitions. There doesn't seem to be any under her own name but rather as a part of larger exhibitions, hence the 'weak keep'.--WebHamster 10:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I've gone through and did an initial cleanup/wikification, including moving the article to its proper name, and formating the refs (note, rough format only, they need to be gone through more carefully and put into WP:CITET format). Given the quanity of exhibitions plus her other activities (curating, teaching, writing), backed up by numerous refs, I believe that this easily meets our notability standards. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 19:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Yes indeed, a major improvement from the original article. As you can see above, I've withdrawn the nomination. Realkyhick 02:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Akradecki. Exhibition record and third-party references are sufficient for notability. COI issues aside, it's looking better. Freshacconci 20:46, 29 August 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.