Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tofusquirrel

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tofusquirrel

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

I honestly would've PRODed but it may be drive-by removed so we'll go with something heavier and AfD instead; none of this comes close at all for actual independent notability and substance, the listed links are trivial and unconvincing, certainly nothing for actual improvements and certainly nothing for convincing, searches quite noticeably found nothing, aside from a few other trivial and unconvincing links of course. I have never seen an actually convincing article for a "poster illustrator" but if there are some, which I believe I may have actually, they have certainly been better than this article. This was actually PRODed before, which I was going to use but it was boldly removed citing the "apparent sources", yet ironically, there's still nothing suggestive of improvements and they are not going to happen since it seems nothing major has actually happened in her career. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom - nice pictures, got work, nothing actually about her - David Gerard (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing much to be found apart from the usual MySpace, Instagram, etc. Refs mentioned in the article (sources that might have carried more weight) are all dead links. Yintan 10:46, 1 October 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.