Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie van Scherpenberg

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 as this is clear enough to close even if a day early and I'm simply not seeing any other clear consensus happening aside from Keep (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katie van Scherpenberg[edit]

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

Fails WP:ARTIST Greek Legend (talk) 10:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is represented in two encyclopedias about Brazilian art and by the Brazilian minister of culture. Part of the problem in sourcing her is that the sources on her seem to primarily be in Portuguese. However, her inclusion in the sources that are provided are sufficient to show that she's important as a Brazilian artist. In addition, a Google book search turns up that she's in plenty of books (many of which unfortunately don't have previews). She doesn't need to pass WP:ARTIST, only WP:GNG for inclusion and I think the article's sources and a Google search shows she does. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there aren't many sources in English, but Google Books shows that she is at least mentioned in several books, and there are further sources in Portuguese, which convinces me that she meets our notability criteria. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless completely rewritten. . Keep now that Giso6150 and Cordless Larry have adressed the copvio. It think the subject may pass WP:GNG because of the tertiary sources, but the article in its current form is problematic. The article is not quite a 100% copyvio, so G12 probably doesn't apply, but it very closely paraphrases this bio at Flatbed press. Earwig's tool has 68.6% confidence that it's a copyvio. The flatbed bio is not dated, but refers to a fair that took place February 12 - 13 - 14, 2016 before the article was written on 4 March 2016.Mduvekot (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I just tagged the copyright text - Giso6150 fixed it. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I easily found reliable sources (in Portuguese) for this notable artist. Obviously the copyright issues must be resolved, but notability is unquestionable to me. giso6150 (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article needs work---perhaps we can get a translation of a Portuguese Wikipedia article on her---but she meets notability requirements. VanEman (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: {please note that we can't get a translation from a Portugese wikipedia article, because none exists. Mduvekot (talk) 17:32, 2 April 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.