Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isabel Bloom

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. —SpacemanSpiff 07:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isabel Bloom

Isabel Bloom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

• Delete. This article was deleted recently via PROD and then reinstated, but still lacks evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable and independent third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 07:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eastmain has added some references and I think it looks okay now. JBsupreme (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No assertion of notability; doesn't meet
  WP:CREATIVE. Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. While I admit the article is lacks citation that directly points you to to the notability, it is still both a notable artist and a notable company. Would recommend a stub tag until the article is improved and references added. Isabel Bloom can be likened to
  User:Ctjf83 before taking further action, as he is a much more experienced editor with good knowledge of the notability of artisists and companies in that region of the United States. --Powerten (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Meets
  WP:CREATIVE. 1. The person is regarded as an important figure. Taking a tour or the production facility is even a recommended tourist activity. 2. The person is known for originating a significant new technique. No citation, but I believe her use of some materials (e.g. Mississippi River basin material]] was and is still unique. 3A. The person has created a significant or collective body of work. Thousands of sculptures are created on an annual basis, and distributed around the world. 3B. The person has been the subject of independent books and films. 3C. The person has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles (e.g. Times and Dispatch-Argus). 4. I am not aware of the person's work becoming a significant monument, or being a substantial part of a significant exhibition. There are studio galleries in Davenport, Iowa and Moline, Illinois which also sell the work. --Powerten (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Please do not duplicate your !vote, one boldface "keep" is sufficient. JBsupreme (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • chat 19:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • WP:AGF works both ways, and no assumptions were made here other than stating the obvious. Furthermore this is hardly a new user but that is really beside the point. Get over yourself. JBsupreme (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
        ]

• Keep Notability established in books and news.
  chat 19:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. I added some references. http://www.qconline.com/progress98/people/prbloom.html is from Progress 98, a 1998 collaboration of three Quad Cities newspapers, and seems to be indepth coverage in a reliable source. And http://www.mtmercy.edu/busselibrary/schome/artists/bloomi.html is a page from an online exhibit organized by a liberal arts college (not quite a book published by a university press, but reasonably respectable). – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the adds there Eastmain. I am willing to withdraw this nomination now, but there is still one delete vote left from Johnbod. JBsupreme (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can still withdraw the nom, and the closer will take that into account, although the extant delete stops a speedy keep. Ty 06:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Now a referenced, notable article Vartanza (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2010 (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.