Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kari Barba

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) 21:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kari Barba

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Alleged to be db-spam, however there is enough coverage in independent sources that I feel the article would be better served by AFD as opposed to CSD. Listing here for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, California, and Minnesota. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The claim to notability (oldest tattoo shop, various awards) as well as the sources presented clearly demonstrate notability. The article does not seem overly promotional, unless listing accolades is unacceptable. If some editors disagree, the best course of action would be to rewrite or reword the article, rather than delete it altogether. Toadspike (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject of this article is clearly notable and meets WP:GNG, having received significant coverage in multiple, independent, verifiable reliable sources such as Los Angeles Times, LA Weekly, Orange County Weekly, Long Beach Post, and others. That her work has been featured in four museum exhibitions, and is included in books on contemporary tattoo art is additional evidence that she is notable. If the article still contains advertorial/promotional tone or language, that can be cleaned up. The article should be retained in the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject is notable and clearly satisfies WP:GNG; totally agree with Netherzone. — Hebrides (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject is clearly notable. Numerous write ups in independent and nationally recognized reliable sources, owner of oldest tattoo shop. Article meets WP:GNG guidelines. Agree with Netherzone and Hebrides. 2600:1700:481E:2E0:D5C8:554D:715F:9928 (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Subject is notable for reasons stated above and meets WP:GNG guidelines. Miosaurus (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2022 (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.