Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carla DeSola (2nd nomination)

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. The references that have came up during this discussion have shown notability. It needs a cleanup, but WP:AFD is not cleanup. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carla DeSola

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

There are really no reliable independent sources here. —swpb^T 16:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 16:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 16:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total lack of indepedent, 3rd party sources to pass the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs a different tone and removal of dead links, but DeSola has quite a bit of coverage in independent sources: the NYTimes and elsewhere. This 1978 NYT piece is fairly substantial. She's also discussed in various books on Google Books - for example Creative Spirituality: The Way of the Artist ps191-195. She seems to be talked about enough to have basic bio notability. She may also pass WP:ARTIST #2, as she is often described as the founder of liturgical dance, and/or a pioneer - like here, p83. Other serious, independent refs:[1], [2], [3], p82-100 I'll try to incorporate some of this in the article over the next couple of days. Lelijg (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now I've done some rewriting and looked at sources more carefully, I'm even more convinced that there's plenty of reliable coverage to pass GNG. Lelijg (talk) 09:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Aside from what Lelijg found, this article in the NYT has significant coverage of her work and studio in the article. This 1976 article from the NYT devotes significant coverage to DeSola. In this NYT article, she is called "one of the country's foremost practictioners of liturgical dancing." Passes GNG easily with significant coverage in RS. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly adequate indicia of notability, plenty of independent coverage. Article IS a mess and needs cleanup, but that is different from notability. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:08, 17 July 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.