Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julie Frith

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. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Frith

Search on web returns no info to verify the subject as meeting WP:ARTIST guidelines, only links to pages that are not third-party sources. Article seems to exist to promote the subject and her work, while giving undue weight to non-notable aspects of her personal life and not meeting WP:GNG. Article creation/creator username reveals likely WP:COI issues. SoSaysChappy (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advert, non-notable, coi. Pick any. --Oscarthecat (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. If she is really as well-known as it says a new article could be started with WP:Reliable sources. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self promotion. Teapotgeorge^Talk 17:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete, valuable viable artist User:Frithmobiles —Preceding undated comment added 17:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No opinion one way or another, but thank you for nominating Julie Frith on July the 5th. Julie Smith, you're next. Mandsford (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shame there's no Julie Heaven to nominate today :-) Astronaut (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and we've now got to wait until next year to nominate the Firth of Forth. pablo_hablo. 10:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - self promotional puff piece with no assertion of notability with reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - self-promo, advert with no evidence of reasons why this is encyclopedic. Astronaut (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an advert. Artypants, ^Babble 18:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Teapotgeorge^Talk 08:37, 12 July 2009 (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.