Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Balma (2nd nomination)

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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Donna Balma

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Donna Balma
• Articles for deletion/Donna Balma (2nd nomination)

Donna Balma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Relisting for further consideration after a no consensus/NPASR close on my first nomination. The problem wasn't that there was any actual disagreement, because nobody voted to keep the first time — rather, there wasn't enough participation after two relists. The problem remains that this is effectively a public relations profile, verging into straight-up résumé territory, rather than a proper encyclopedia article — and for sourcing, it relies almost entirely on references where the subject is credited as the author of the reference, making them primary sources which cannot legitimately demonstrate her encyclopedic notability. I still believe it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 02:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Delete This article was created 30 September 2014 and everything substantive in it has been added by a single, new editor - although other editors have added categories, fixes, links. I know a little about "visionary" or "outsider " art. And it is unusual for an artist to claim to be an outsider artist, since the category describes artists who are unschooled, sometimes illiterate or semi-literate, certainly untrained in art and often mentally unstable, it is more usual for the art of these naive, often obsessive, solitary or otherwise eccentric but talented artists who often work in unusual media to be identified by others. I do know that lots of people who merit Wikipedia articles don't have them, and that it is not necessarily illegitimate for an artist or someone close to the artist to put up a new page. This article was almost certainly created either by the subject, or by someone who knows and/or admires her. What is unusual here is that the article's editor, who obviously knows a lot about the subject/artist, can find so little substantive coverage to put on the page. The references from a local paper, Coastal Times, are not about the artist, but merely include her name in a list of artists being shown locally. Links also lead to non-selective artist-listing websites. other references are to Raw Vision, a real, if small, magazine devoted to Outsider art. This may be true; a search for her name on the magazine's website search function produced nothing, but many magazine websites are inadequate. Googling produces no more than is on the page. What seems, for example, to be a launch party for a book of which she is the author [1] in an art gallery, is for a book published by "Lentis Books" which appears [2] to be a a self-publishing platform. There are some gallery listings, and this interview [3] but I can't find info in magazines or newspapers of any reputation.ShulMaven (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Weak delete - [repeating !vote from previous nomination] Not quite finding enough sources to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Weak delete She actually sounds like an interesting artist but the article is in desperate need of some independent sources. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 07:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

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.