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The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Eubank[edit]

Danielle Eubank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No assertion of notability, fails WP:Creative. Apparently an autobiography. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Keep. I might open a separate afd on Fletcher Beasley. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A gallery in LA, a gallery in London, lots of google hits, various exhibitions, seems fine to me..the article needs work but she seems encyclopedic, interesting and notable to me...Modernist (talk) 02:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I suppose I would be more amenable to keeping the article if it weren't so obviously an autobiography. Yourartresource's only contributions have been to this article and the article on her perhaps even less notable husband Fletcher Beasley. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment..I did a little format work and placed tags there...Modernist (talk) 11:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Not a major artist, but a write up in the LA Times [1] and probably more sources out there. The tone is promotional, but that's not a reason to delete.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Talk · ^Review 00:02, 26 March 2009 (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.