Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Gadsden

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Gadsden

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

I still confirm my specific PROD here and I'll note searches at BBC, The Guardian and The Telegraph only found a few links at the latter two (the Guardian had a few mentions whereas the Telegraph only actually had one) but they were never anything else but still being trivial and also for local art events therefore there's still nothing for actual independent notability and substance. SwisterTwister talk 19:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Guardian review here is more than a mention and counts as coverage in a reliable source detailing her severe medical condition and her major part in an art exhibition at the Southbank which can be consideref as a national exhibition rather than a local exhibition. The Guardian review indicates there could well be similar coverage in other national newspapers that are not available free online. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That one review is still thin regarding actual substance of what would needed as noted by my nomination above, it's also not conceivable to say there could be other news online when I have in fact myself (as noted above) searched at every single major British newspaper, and found nothing but mere mentions. SwisterTwister talk 04:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on the source mentioned above plus coverage of her work in Qatari newspapers [1][2] plus (less compelling, but still reliable) coverage from the UK Parliament [3] and magazines [4][5].--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2016 (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.