Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nora Blansett

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 Delete. CitiCat ♫ 18:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nora Blansett

Nora Blansett (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

DeleteNot noteable Endless Dan 18:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There are more websites relating to the artist Nora Blansett than there are Kylie InGold, who has less credible information regarding her life and work. If artists such as Amy Brown and Nora Blansett are to be removed, with far more credits to their names (including winning prestigious awards such as the Froudian Art Awards), then should there not be a complete overhaul of current, living fantasy artists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frivilousity (talk • contribs) 18:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It is still my opinion that while these particular artists are of no interest to you, it does not mean that their life and accomplishments which are highly acclaimed are not of interest to others. These are in fact notable, esteemed artists in their field of fantasy illustration and each have been published with documented awards by other noted artists and organizations. Their validity should not be determined by whether or not someone who's response is "As for the other crap exists argument"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frivilousity (talk • contribs) 21:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak delete I really wanted to vote to keep her based on gut instinct (it certainly seems to me she's notable enough) but Google News and Google Books both came up with nothing, so unlike with Amy Brown there might not be any particularly reliable sources saying so. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 01:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - It seems to me that the award ought to make her notable (at least it would if there was an article about the award) but in sheer Google terms she isn't. Deb 11:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, her award is only mentioned on the Brian Froud site along with other award winners. If you need information regarding the validity of her Froudian Award, the information is here, straight from the World of Froud website: http://www.worldoffroud.com/www/froudians/frdart/aug2006.cfm

I would also like to state that ones notoriety on the world wide web shouldn't be a factor in determining their notability. This artist's website clearly states that they have only been on the web since July of last year. Given that she has only had one year to press her work on the internet and already has 11,600 hits for Google, I'd say that her notability has skyrocketed and will easily be one of the more well known fantasy artists on the internet. I hate sounding argumentative -- but I feel that there are often artists that are very popular, but only in certain circles. There are millions of people who have no idea who Brian Froud is, and yet he's the most well known of all fantasy artists worldwide. Five years ago, you would have found *nothing* on the internet about him. I'd like to think that opportunities should be made to make information available about artists of quality that aren't painting poppies on a mountainside. We should be supporting the arts -- and including an artist that has gone from zero to 11,600 in a years time is certainly not a waste of time.  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frivilousity (talk • contribs) 21:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to "support the arts". shoy 19:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete NN, at least for now. Marcus22 20:37, 23 September 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.