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. Coredesat 02:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Megan_baker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

The references for recognitions received have been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kneestrees (talk • contribs) 2007/11/23 08:23:54

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No hits for this name on either of the sites listed as references. Unable to establish notability via those references or otherwise. Maralia (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Can't link directly to her article in Eyemazing, but she is listed in issue 1 2007. Article in Beautiful Decay is Issue 35 of the Anthology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.80.25 (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Deletenn. JJL (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability not established. Hammer1980·^talk 19:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 06:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete These references don't prove notability. JNW (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes they do...there are articles about the topic in credible art magazines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.80.25 (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable yet, but she is only 16, so no prejudice to recreation.... Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Two 'keeps' by the same IP. As per Johnbod, this can be revisited in the future. JNW (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable. The Beautiful Decay is not a credible art magazine (it's mainly an online store). Eyemazing reference does not include any actual bibliographic info, such as a page number or issue number. freshacconcispeaktome 15:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coment What is it about the non-notable, self-promotional articles always using the lower-case for the last name? Must be something to that.... freshacconcispeaktome 15:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although the issue numbers were noted earlier in this page, they have now been added to the references section of the article as well. The reason the last name of the subject isn't capitalized is that when I created the article, a page for a "Megan Baker" (a different one) had already been created and deleted and therefore my article by default reverted back to the original title form. Would also like to note that this article is not "self-promotional" in any way as its author (me) is not its subject, just someone with a strong opinion about art and the necessity of supporting independent and up-and-coming artists. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kneestrees (talk • contribs) 22:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No WP:RS => violates WP:BLP. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2007 (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.