Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheryl Kline

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. The result of this discussion don't have any effect on the drafts, though they should probably be merged into a single draft page. Salting is only appropriate if this title is repeatedly recreated. ✗plicit 10:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Kline

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Artist subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - existing citations appear to be primary or near-primary sources. Also several significant assertions are unsupported by reliable, independent sources. Paul W (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Paul W (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California. Shellwood (talk) 09:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Visual arts. Netherzone (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am pretty sure this is the work of a PR agent or marketing strategist who is trying a little too hard to publish a WP article on this artist. There are also drafts by the same creator and another WP:SPA waiting in the wings for Draft:Cheryl Kline, Draft:Cheryl Ann Kline, and Draft:Cheryl Ann Kline (Figurative Painter) if this one gets deleted. Therefore: WP:PROMO. While the artist has some technical ability and started her own "school" and self-published her own book, an online BEFORE search does not reveal the type of independent coverage in reliable sources that we would normally find for a notable artist. What I do find are press releases, gallery listings and other primary sources, Amazon and ThriftBooks selling her self-published book, adverts for her "school", and user-submitted content, native advertising "magazines" like Artist Portfolio Magazine where an artist can buy space to have an article, etc. I am not finding WP:SIGCOV such as in-depth reviews in notable art magazines, entries in art history books nor a a track record of important exhibitions or works in notable museum collections. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article and its three redundant drafts. Some gallery shows and two articles in the same local newspaper that both read like retreaded press releases do not constitute a pass of WP:ARTIST. And you do not get to keep backup drafts waiting in the wings in case your main article gets shot down. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Netherzone and David Eppstein have said all that needs to be said about notability. The creators of the drafts (Samism1, Shaunsmith12) should probably be investigated for UPE/socking. -- asilvering (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing admin: if this is deleted, what would be the best method for deleting the duplicate drafts? Would salting be appropriate? Netherzone (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2023 (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.