Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rose Bond

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. Michig (talk) 07:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Bond

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

There is some coverage, but it doesn't seem to add up to WP:ARTIST, WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for over 7 years; hopefully, we can now get it resolved. Boleyn (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is considered notable by several sources. I'm still digging for more info, but she's shown work at many important animation festivals and also done work for the Smithsonian. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a weak one, not seeing the kind of coverage from WP:RS that is needed; there are lots of flaky sources in this way-too-long article which tries too hard, looks like WP:ADVERT, no sense this subject meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Her work is collected by MOMA and she has screened films at several significant film festivals (like Sundance.) Also, I fail to see how her coverage in the news and her inclusion in books and journals covering film and animation as topics constitute "flaky sources." I'll concede that the article is trying a little "too hard" and I'll copyedit when I have the time, though I'd encourage anyone who's interested to help smooth the article out. I don't think it rises to the point of WP:ADVERT. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please see WP:RS. I found a mention of her here plus a listing here, mention here, mention here, there's a blurb about her at the Portland Art Museum which is not really an acceptable secondary source. What we need is in-depth reliable commentary on Rose Bond and her work in (preferably) checkable (inline) citations, an impartial source commenting on why RB is notable. Right now, if interested in having the article survive this challenge, good idea to trim ALL of the unreferenced or poorly referenced junk, which is mostly everything. My two cents.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I have looked at WP:RS. I fail to see how her inclusion in art sources and books falls under "poorly referenced junk" especially since she's included in an Oxford University Press reference book. All of my citations are checkable and inline. Also, why is Portland art museum an unacceptable secondary source? She is also award-winning in her field and published. I'm still working on her published works in the bib. BTW thanks for the links to the news sources. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~- a good solid interview or profile like the first source would probably swing me the other way, but all the other refs seem to be promotional material or otherwise not usable. Artw (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep due to article improvement. Artw (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is an audio and video interview, would that help swing things if I added that to the article? In addition, I went through Lexis Nexis and found several news sources to replace the "promotional" sources. I hope I haven't seemed to combative about this article, but I'm passionate about what I do and I'm always trying to learn and write better articles. I do think she's notable enough to keep since she shows up in several news outlets internationally and is written about in books on the topic of animation and film. Anyhoo... thanks for the critiques everyone and I hope I can sway your weak delete, Artw. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to meet GNG and WP:ARTIST #4(d) now thanks to the substantial improvements by Megalibrarygirl. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 14:42, 28 June 2015 (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.