Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lina Condes (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lina Condes

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This was soft deleted, and then instantly recreated. Soft delete does not give editors a free pass to flaunt WP:GNG guidelines. The subject remains non-notable, so the article should be, again, deleted. 2Joules (talk) 07:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC) striking the nom as a confirmed, blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 07:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 07:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 07:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has coverage in reliable sources such as Vogue, Forbes and Miami New Times already in the article and has had many notable exhibitions so passes WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. The recreation after a soft delete was completely valid, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~:@User:Atlantic306 The vogue article bears the label, "Promotion" under the title. Same is the condition of other articles. This is typical churnalism. 2Joules (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

There are other reliable sources in the article including Russian and Italian references, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nom obviously did not do WP:BEFORE. I see many good sources in a new search, and why would she be in this Atlantic article picturing her piece in the Venice Biennale if she was an unknown? Come to think of it, being in the VB means automatic inclusion via WP:ARTIST. Sorry but this is a bad nomination.198.58.163.19 (talk) 05:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC) — ~~198.58.163.19 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. And they seem to have suspiciously found thier way to AFD very quickly without making even a dozen edits.~~ [reply]
Keep as per others, esp. coverage of artist's work at Venice Biennale, with local coverage elsewhere. Problem that many sources are not in English. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 08:04, 6 July 2018 (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.