Deletion of Nicole van Dam

Comment: I hate to do this when there has been so much written here from people who want the article to be kept, but it looks like it is a little  for Ms. van Dam to have a Wikipedia article. I see some evidence of local notability from the references provided above, but not yet the level that our |notability guidelines require. Additionally, a search on Google Books turned up books by her, but no significant coverage ''about'' her, and I didn't find anything on Google News or Scholar
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:ARTIST)

Comment: doesn't meet the criteria described at 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ARTIST)

Comment: References provided by artmaestro (especially artmaestro nos. 1,2,3,5 and 7 above)(however verbose)  show article satisfies several elements of both  and  by indicating government collections as well as corporate/hospital collections and public exhibition.  These assertions appear evidenced by government created websites and regional newspapers.See artmaestro nos 1,2,3 and "Montecito Journal" article Vol. 11, Issue 21, 2005  Furthermore,  states at top of page state that all deletions are "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."  I think a fulcrum issue for some editors in this instance might be that licensing history, however extensive and regardless if evidenced by the article, is not specifially clearly addressed in  (or other) guidelines in the .  I believe national/international licensing history should expressly be part of the  or other guidelines, because such extensive licensing (as indicated by the references in artmaestro number 5 above) provides the artist ongoing national (and in this case international) coverage.  Licensing history also evidences that independent 3rd party manufacturers feel an artist notable enough to use the artist's name on articles that manufacturer develops and manufactures, which is a financial and reputation risk to the manufacturer.  For example, any product development requires a manufacturer to expend resources making molds, prototypes, etc. Simply stated, a manufacturer must find the artist notable to pay money to use the artist's name and art on their products, so therefore significant licensing history in and of itself should be support of notability.  Also at least one gallery (note - this gallery is associated with the school at which the subject of the article is a professor) refers to this artist in a list of artists as being nationally recognized.http://www.sbcc.edu/art/website/index.php?page=115 While in some instances this might be of questionable import (given the affiliation of the artist with the school), in this instance such recognition by the artist's peers might be especially meaningful because this particular school itself Santa Barbara City College was in 2011 the only school in California to be named as one of the ten finalist community colleges in the nation by the Aspen Institute's College Excellence Program.http://www.sbcc.edu/athletics/sbcc_named_top_10_school.php.  I also find the animated children's book project that was created using an established talent and animator helpful to the article's case - see artmaestro no. 4 above.  All artmaestro's points above show a consistent track record and history of national, peer and manufacturer recognition, and even if one does not agree that the standard of  or  is precisely met here (I think the standards of each are satisfied weel enough here), nonetheless a solid argument can be made that "common sense" as noted in the  could be used to support keeping the article, because licensing simply is not yet expressly addressed in the .  If there is doubt, this is an article that should NOT be deleted.Special:Contributions/208.127.109.195|208.127.109.195
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ARTIST||WP:DP||WP:ARTIST||WP:DP||WP:ARTIST||WP:GNG||WP:DP||WP:DP)

Comment: Despite all the impassioned comments above, this subject does not appear to meet Wikipedia's |notability guidelines for artists.  I have spent some time looking for anything which would count as | a reliable source to support the retention of the article but have come up blank
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ARTIST||WP:RS)