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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 01:46Z

Kelisha Osborne[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. Tyrenius 02:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that Ms. Osborne meets the biographical criteria for inclusion. The "external links" list are lists of names, with little or no reference to the importance of the subject. User:Jerzy has removed a pretty significant list of things that appear to be more along the lines of promotion rather than information: those are listed on the article's talk page. Joyous! | Talk 23:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Del as n-n. I was indeed concerned by what seemed to me a promotional tone, tho that of course is irrelevant to this discussion of whether an encyclopedic article on her can be written (quite distinct from the current quality of the article). I might change my vote if we are provided an explanation of her G-Test

84 of about 147 for "Kelisha Osborne"

other than that she's wonderful and needs WP to get the word out on her; perhaps this AfD will bring that forth.
--Jerzy•t 04:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What's the harm in including her as long as the inclusion follows Wikipedia's policy. Ms. Osborne certainly meets notable as far as Wikipedia's standards are concerned WP:BIO, not everything in wiki is or should be related to Politics, Science, Geography or Playboy Playmate. Why be so finicky about what stays or what should be considered for deletion.
This is a prime example of having Wikipedia. Alt212 11:19, 28 February 2007
— Alt212 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep- I disagree Joyous: WP states "Articles that can be improved should be edited OR tagged, NOT nominated for deletion". I didn't constitute subject matter as being promotional. Links are clear as to her writings and painting exhibits. Ms. Osborne doesn't fall into "Rubbish" content pages. I vote to leave her on plus she appears to have some wits abour her. I agree Jerzy, she is wonderful. flyty -27, February 2007
— Flyty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. Alf^Photoman 20:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - artist, model, whatever! Not yet notable as an artist, or model, or writer. Johnbod 03:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is little notability asserted in the article. Her work looks good. But Wikipedia requires "non-trivial" sources. I don't think that includes personal web sites. Notability can be established by critical reviews, or a more than just passing mention in serious publications unrelated to the artist, as well as by other means. When that can be supplied, I think the work would support inclusion. I like the paintings. Bus stop 00:13, 4 March 2007 (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.