Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julie Umerle (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 keep. → Call me Hahc21 20:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Umerle

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

Notability template removed without any improvement so I'll raise this to the Wikipedia community to decide. There's currently no hard proof of notability here (the best source is an exhibition catalogue, which is barely independent, and a very brief article about two of her paintings in New York). True, she has received several grants from the Arts Council, which can be seen as evidence they treat her as a serious artist. There are several single purpose accounts that have worked on this article, suggesting there may be promotion going on. Artist has an unusual name so you would think reviews and news coverage would be easy to find. I'm not convinced Umerle meets WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. Sionk (talk) 12:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reading through, I find little other than simple factual statements that appear to comply with NPOV guidelines. Article has been up here for four years and I have made several edits myself. It is improving slowly. I don't think it warrrants AfD.GoldAggar (talk) 13:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are several sources on Google Books search. I think the fact that she began exhibiting in 1980 (pre-internet) could be a problem in establishing earlier sources. Nevertheless there are enough recent references to establish notability in this article - collections, exhibition record, awards, secondary sources. Jessops (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Meets WP:CREATIVE. "the person's work (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." The article establishes its own relevence. NationalTreasure (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2014 (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.