Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mara Adamitz Scrupe

:{{la|Mara Adamitz Scrupe}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mara_Adamitz_Scrupe Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Mara Adamitz Scrupe}})

Article does not meet notability guidlines. Possible self promotion/ autobiography. Rhaskell42 (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

This biography fails to meet the notability guidelines for creative professionals Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals.

:Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:

:: 1) The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

:: 2) The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.

:: 3)The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of :::work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple :::independent periodical articles or reviews.

:: 4) The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a :::significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of :::several notable galleries or museums.

Rhaskell42 (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Delete I find nothing that does not go directly back to her and she cannot be the source of her own notability. Though I tried web, news, scholar and books, I find no RS to establish even the lower threshold of GNG. SusunW (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. No independent sources & no claim to notability beyond "average professor". SPA-created article is likely a fan-page or may be auto-bio by an ed not familiar with sourcing requirements. Agricola44 (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC).
• Delete. She seems to be a successful working artist but not yet a high-enough profile one for WP:ARTIST. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show notability. I agree with David Eppstein, this may be a case of a working, but not notable artist, or it may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. From reading the article and having edited 1000s of wikipedia artist bios over the years, with a dozen solo exhibits, several international permanent commissions, award-winning published poetry, two endowed chairs at universities before her current full professorship at a distinguished university, this person seems to exceed over 90% of the contemporary artists with bios in wikipedia. She's mentioned in nearly 300 googled books. Perhaps one can argue that her art alone, poetry alone, or academics alone is borderline notable, but the combination is solid.Afasmit (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.