Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marina Amaral

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Amaral

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

The article is not relevant and doesn't agree with Wikipedia:Notability. It doesn't gather any actions that could make Amaral stand out and therefore I consider her page non profitable for Wikipedia. As the original creator pointed, it's better to wait (I quote) "50 years and write a real article" until Amaral complies with the notability to have an article. Also, although now reverted, the page had been used as a promotion by Amaral herself (COI). Macesito (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wrote this article because the subject passes WP:GNG. There are multiple, independent, reliable sources that specifically discuss her and her work. The content present is based upon what those sources say and the nominator hasn't specified how they believe the sources aren't enough or are flawed. And yes, I reverted Marinamaral2 only hours after she tried to add promotional material to the article. I don't see how this nomination meets the requirements of WP:DEL. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It's true that she has had some coverage in good sources. However that coverage usually does not mention anything more than the fact that she is a colourist. In terms of improvement, the portrait could be toned down/ made smaller as it looks very promotional.198.58.168.40 (talk) 06:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On the English Wikipedia, notability refers to the body of sources available on a subject, not the subject's subjectively-judged accomplishments. There are plenty of sources listed in this article. There was one instance of COI/promotional editing in February and it was reverted within 3 hours, so that's a pretty spurious concern. – Joe (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This artist's (is that the correct term?) work has been featured on the History channel website, Wired magazine, the Washington Examiner colorized historic images of D-Day, New Jersey online, Resource magazine. And on and on it goes. The article only claims to be a stub. I think there is enough coverage of notability here. Sources, sources, sources - enough coverage out there. — Maile (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. I added a few references and information about a book she is involved with. Thsmi002 (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2018 (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.