Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tina Frugoli

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Frugoli

[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)

Recent article. GNG fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am the article's author. I wasn't 100% confident myself that the subject qualified as notable, and will not oppose this deletion nomination, though I am not sure I understand how the article's "recentness" bears on the subject's notability (?). A loose noose (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't relate to notability. It's just a note to say the article has not been around for along time, which would have likely subjected it to more scrutiny.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... But that seems like less of an argument and more of an innuendo: "This article hasn't been around long enough to have been thoroughly scrutinized, so let's begin with the assumption that it might be a good candidate for deletion, before we even begin looking at its sources." Shouldn't you begin by saying, "The sources in this article do not adequately convey the subject's notability" if that, in fact, is what you believe to be true? Arguing to the age of the article is like an ad hominem attack: it isn't actually relevant, though maybe it is just too tempting not to mention it. What if we had to stick to the article and its sources rather than its age or what color it is or how fast it can run? I am not saying the sources here convey notability, I am saying aren't they supposed to be the thing that matters? Or would you rather slip poison in my tea? A loose noose (talk) 04:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok , you found me out--I'm CIA. The article age comment is a code I use to signal my comrades in an undisclosed location. Seriously now, ad hominem ("against the man") attacks are not possible on ideas. That's just fallacious. You might be reading too much into it. For example new articles have AFC and the new articles feed for a reason. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CREATIVE, my searches are turning up nothing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Come on, it isn't that hard to find something on her, even if you don't think it is enough to qualify her as notable! A loose noose (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2018 (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.