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. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suzan Woodruff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I do no see anything to suggest that this person meets WP:ARTIST. TheLongTone (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She doesn't have to pass the standards of WP:ARTIST. Instead, all we have to show is that she passes GNG. Here are some sources: Huffington Post 2013, full article on Woodruff, LA Times 2001 significant review of her work, 2013 Review of Woodruff's work, Huffington Post 2013, a mention, but showing where she fits in art trend continuum, Entertainment Close-up 2013, description of her work and venues (subscription needed to HighBeam), Money 2005, an article about Woodruff and her husband (subscription to EBSCO needed). She has also been covered in other sources, but I'm not able to get access to all of them. They are listed here. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets WP:GNG. Article could use expansion and improved referencing, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete instead as the 2 reviews shown are still not enough and there's certainly no actual museum collections here to begin with, next is the fact the other sources that are said to be significant are in fact event announcements, that's not substance at all, and it's worse if we're going to say that's the best existing. SwisterTwister talk 02:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She is actually passing WP:ARTIST, which is more narrow criteria than WP:GNG. She does not need to have permanent museum collection as it's just one criteria of WP:ARTIST. She's passing the following sub-criteria of WP:ARTIST: 4(a) - method she invented is widely reviewed, 4(b) - there are a lot of her exhibitions - in public and private galleries, that received a lot of critical attention and 4(c), which is visible from the references. Since only one criteria is enough to pass, she's easily should be granted and article. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Not that it is relevant in the world of Wikipedia, but they are clearly horrible paintings.TheLongTone (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - seems to pass WP:ARTIST by a thin margin and per the coverage received. Although I completely agree to what TheLongTone said at the end. Yash! 22:53, 2 January 2017 (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.