Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Biggs (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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 08:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Biggs

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

Lacks significant coverage from multiple reliable and independent sources. The coverage found seems to either be trivial, from unacceptable sources, or very local or limited in scope. Yaksar (let's chat) 05:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 06:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 06:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was unable to find significant coverage previously to satisfy notability and a year later, I am still only able to find the same sources as last time. Insufficient coverage to meet our inclusion guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 11:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I have notified all the participants from the first AFD about this second nomination. -- Whpq (talk) 13:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A substantial section in the book The Art of Faery and indication of further coverage ([1]) suggests that she is notable. Google Books suggests that more coverage exists in other books. --Michig (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The only significant references seem to be in The Art Of Faery and its sequel; these are books of fairy art which include work by Biggs, and therefore without closer study I'm not sure if they count as independent (if you're mentioned in a book you contributed to, that doesn't necessarily prove notability). In any case the book and sequel are probably only one source together. There are claims in the first AfD that she originated a new style and is important for this, but where is the evidence? I'm willing to change my mind, but right now I don't see enough evidence. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable No NYT or other news mentions. No solid hits even using googlebooks search for anything we can even read a bit of. Sorry - but even my loose standards are not met here. Collect (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's great. I'll just tell all the other sources that aren't the New York Times to pack up and go home, then. That'll save them some time, and embarassment too, as I am sure they won't want to fall foul of your standards, them being so loose and all. Anarchangel (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry, Michig, the link you have has nothing to do with the subject. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Baltimore Sun article "5 Things I Have to Have Now: Fantasy Artist Linda Biggs" about "a Baltimore native and fantasy artist whose works are collected around the globe"? Is it a different fantasy artist named Linda Biggs? --Michig (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "5 Things I Have to Have Now" article appears to be a regular column in which local local personalities are interviewed to list 5 things they have to have now. (See this search [2]). In particular, I was able to find that the Baltimore sun has the article without the pay wall here. The article is more of an interview, and not reallty about Biggs. -- Whpq (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability as an artist – just making and selling works of art or craft isn't sufficient for notability. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:CREATIVE , there is complete lack of major awards or recognition. LibStar (talk) 10:36, 4 April 2012 (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.