mic_none

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rox De Luca Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rox_De_Luca

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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rox De Luca

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Rox De Luca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Regrettably, I'm not seeing evidence that the subject passes WP:GNG/WP:NARTIST. I hope to be proved wrong! IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 10:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes No This is a reupload on the subject's website of a blogspot article (WP:SELFPUBLISH). No See WP:SELFPUBLISH. ✘ No
No This is the artist's CV. Yes See WP:ABOUTSELF. No See WP:ABOUTSELF. ✘ No
Yes Yes Yes This is a travel guide website that ran an article on the artist. ✔ Yes
Yes Yes No Doesn't mention the subject; this is just the link to a painting by the subject's mother. ✘ No
No This is a residency report from the subject itself on a blog. Yes See WP:ABOUTSELF. No See WP:ABOUTSELF. ✘ No
Yes Yes ~ This is a fairly short mention; the subject is not the main focus of the article, but is quoted, with some commentary on their work. ~ Partial
Millner, Jacqueline; Moore, Catriona (2022). Contemporary art and feminism. New York: Routledge. p. 193.
 Yes Yes Yes Offline source, accepting in good faith: according to the block quotation, this is a paragraph mention in the book. ✔ Yes
Brennan, Anne (1 December 1997). "Beyond reason: Jo Darbyshire and Rox De Luca". Eyeline. 35: 22–24.
 Yes Yes Yes Offline source, accepting in good faith, though the title suggests this may be an interview. ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Yes A paragraph mention on the subject and their work. ✔ Yes
Allatson, Paul (1996). "Men and Mettle". Artlink. 16 (1): 24–26.
 Yes Yes Yes Offline source, accepting in good faith. ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Yes Very short mention of the subject and one of their works. ✔ Yes
No This is a project with which the artist is associated. Yes No Name doesn't even feature in the source. ✘ No
Yes Yes No Very short, one-sentence mention of the subject and one of their works, which to me constitutes a trivial mention. ✘ No
Yes Yes No Just the subject's name is mentioned. ✘ No
Yes Yes No Just the subject's name is mentioned. ✘ No
No This is her biography as an artist-in-residence, almost certainly written by the subject. Yes No See WP:ABOUTSELF. ✘ No
Yes No No Just the subject's name is mentioned. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Your mileage may vary, but to me, these sources, assessed together, do not demonstrate that WP:GNG is met. In particular, we have only one "chunky" piece that focuses on the artist, while the rest are either borderline trivial mentions or the artist and their work are discussed, in no more than a paragraph, as a subtopic. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 10:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IMO WP:BASIC is marginally met. X (talk) 13:03, 28 April 2024 (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.