Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Earley

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Earley[edit]

[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)

No evidence of notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a run of the mill artist. GNG fail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a copyright violation of loriearley.com/about Vexations (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- They are similar but I don't see the copyright violation here. J 947^{'s public account} 22:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  J947 Public, See https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Lori_Earley Vexations (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, I deleted the infringing stuff. J 947^{'s public account} 20:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional. Introducing a promotional text that is written by her gallery and pretending the article is neutral by saying "Earley's gallery, the Allouche Gallery wrote:" that is still promotional, even though it is a quote that "technically" is allowed because it attributes the statement, I think that is stretching our policies and guidelines to their limits. Unless an independent source says it, it should not be included in the article. Vexations (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI , I gave the gallery promotion a trim. Still a GNG fail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it is a case of WP:TOOSOON. She is accomplished and the art, women in a surrealistic, figurative Anime/Gothic style with weird hair, long necks, big eyes are hugely recognisable and collectable. So it is only time when she is back here. scope_creep^Talk 09:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not finding reliable sources. Curiocurio (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2019 (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.