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. NW (Talk) 02:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May DaCamara[edit]

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

This person is non-notable and does not meet WP:ARTIST as no reliable sources have been produced or can be found for this person to support the article apart from one self promotional website or un-official websites that are likely to be circular and self published. As a check, no Google News, no Google Books and no Google Scholar articles exist for this person. Wikipedia is not a resource to reprint self promotional literature as if it were encyclopaedic or notable. Ash (talk) 09:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. The subject may be notable for her association with a historically significant religious movement in the US. Not really self-promotional, since the subject has been dead for 33 years. The article is neutral in tone and decently written. It does not appear to be a type of WP:SPAM--the artist and her religious movement were most active in the 30s & 40s. While the article lack sources, but perhaps this can be remedied. More sources are listed at "I AM" Activity. One should also consider contacting the article's prime author directly to enquire. --Whoosit (talk) 07:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(note) As part of the normal AFD process the originator is notified and invited to comment in this discussion (see User talk:Sburke) so this has been taken care of.—Ash (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

→Important to point out the related debate on her collaborator Charles Sindelar, above. This has generated quite some discussion. I feel AfD for these two should be discussed and decided upon together, as the contention--artistic or other notability--is essentially the same. --Whoosit (talk) 22:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I could find online were wikipedia mirrors, directory listings, none which could substantiate the notability of the subject. She doesn't even get a mention in the article "I AM" Activity, from which I must conclude it should be deleted rather than merged. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, unreferenced New seeker (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The fact that it needs work and references is not grounds for concluding that it is non-notable. Racepacket (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (note) The deletion nomination was not based on whether the article needed work or references, it was based on an actual lack of available reliable sources to demonstrate notability as checked by a lack of such sources on the normal Google Books, News and Scholar searches.—Ash (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I would say merge, but I don't really see where it can be merged. It seems to lack sources indeed. --Cyclopia (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any decent sources either. Looking back at the article's historyh, some of it seems to have been based on a weird self published religious website that clearly fails WP:RS. Much of it seems to have no source and might be OR. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the point is, this is a very influencial painter who created the famous "I AM" Presence painting and relate paintings, which has been adapted through many theosophical and newage subgroups; hardly anyone knows who painted those, and I actually started to attribute her work in my online activities. It's a shame there is no page where people can find the page on her and unable to EXTEND it and provide more information about her. By removing the page the risk that her work (quite known) isn't credited properly - because hardly any information can be found on her. A kind of chicken/egg problem - but at least at Wikipedia anyone can add information and bootstrap useful information. So - please put it back and wait for 6 months and see what happens. There are mindless TV episodes featured on Wikipedia but an influencial but fairely unknown artist can't have a page at Wikipedia? -- 20 November 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.4.84.164 (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2010 (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.