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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Anderson (artist) (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)

Not enough sources. I don't think it should qualify to be an article. And also does not have significant data. The article did not undergo AFC. And also the sources are not reliable to be given as a support for the article. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 09:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 09:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 09:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude ^talk 09:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude ^talk 09:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Feeble though this stub is, it links to evidence that the subject's work is in the permanent collections of three museums that could reasonably be called prestigious. Therefore she passes WP:ARTIST (criterion 4d). Regardless of either its current feebleness or whether or not the nominator "[thinks] it should qualify to be an article", this (or an improvement on it) does qualify. -- Hoary (talk) 11:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Meets WP:NARTIST criteria #4, as she is in several notable museum collections. There is nothing wrong with the sourcing for the info in this short stub, it suffiently proves that she is in those collections. OP does not mention policy-based rationalle for deletion. Article can be improved and should be retained; AfD is not clean up. Netherzone (talk) 12:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is more information available from the Barbara Archer Gallery reference, as it reproduces three newspaper articles by Catherine Fox. I added content using only one of the articles. David notMD (talk) 12:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Artist's work is in the collection of the Whitney. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a documented career, museums pieces, article improvement since the nomination. Bingo. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Per User:Itcouldbepossible, the nominator is new to Wikipedia. Is everyone OK with a WP:SNOW close? It will snow in hell before we delete an article on an artist whose work is in the collections of several notable museums. Instructions for withdrawing the nomination are at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Withdrawing_a_nomination. Vexations (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm fine with a snow keep or withdrawl. Netherzone (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2021 (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.