Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marko Stout (3rd 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Stout

[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)

The argument made in the last AFD was that the huffpo piece and chicago tribune piece established notability. I fail to see how this is true since both pieces are contributor pieces, which are UGC. The rest of the sources were blatantly unreliable or just event listings and even the FB101 source is super questionable and looks user submitted. Aside from that, I can find no actual in depth coverage and based on my search, the sources I can find are also black hat seo. Praxidicae (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with my compliments to his publicist, who has constructed quite the house of cards. None of the solo shows are in legit galleries. All the group shows are in art fairs, and don't specify which fairs they were in (Art Basel Miami Beach, is essentially 20+ fairs that cluster around the main fair, some of which are legit, others not so much). And most importantly, as the first deletion discussion covered, the sources are all PROMO. Forbes India [1] is "Brand Connect" with this disclaimer "Disclaimer: The views, suggestions and opinions expressed here are the sole responsibility of the experts. No Forbes India journalist was involved in the writing and production of this article." Foreign Policy [2] is not Foreign Policy (magazine), but is rather foreignpolicyi.org -- check out that trailing "i" at the end of the domain name. Pretty sneaky. He has some celebrity endorsements, though these won't make up N, and the most famous amongst them are know for endorsing products for fees. If he actually develops a legit celebrity following, and gets legit coverage for that, then he might end up meeting GNG, but that's not the case here. Theredproject (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete talk about unreliable sources. A search only finds a pile of extremely exaggerated reports of his success. For example, I don't believe that "Marko Stout is Currently New York’s Hottest Selling Artist". I am also very dubious that he is the Next Andy Warhol. The claim that Marko Stout Reinvents Pop Art With His Urban Cool Provocative Imagery and Critically-Acclaimed Collection also seems a little exaggerated. Whoever is being paid to write headlines like "Marko Stout: A Pop Artist Contravention the Rules" (the URL for this headline triggered the Spam blacklist) is probably being paid too much. And so on. The majority of the articles covering him are obviously paid PR. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ThatMontrealIP, "He is now onboard with Time Bulletin as a free lance (sic) writer." Vexations (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations yes, but "All of the art depicted by this amazing artist screams narrative story fully bound with astounding colors, scarped by tenacious detail and ending with a touch of drama"... and "He is only given the title of a strong. And competitive urban artist only recently." ... "And enjoys a cut-out version of the Rockstar looks. His looks, the long stripped apparels." and from the same source, "Other than that, by visiting his official website you can come around the virtual library. Where all of his work can be seen. And analyzed while also coming around other celebrity testimonials there."ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had posted some lengthy analysis of the sources earlier, but it's really quite simple. All the sources are clearly promotional. Fails both GNG and NARTIST. Vexations (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a bunch of paid promotional placements does not constitute the indepdent, reliable 3rd party secondary indepth coverage that is needed to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hate to pile-on but the level to which this subject has gone to promote and fabricate their notability is remarkable. I am sure we will see re-incarnations of this BLP, and thus hopefully this AfD will serve as a marker to dig deeper and be aware of how faked their notability is. Should probably WP:SALT? Britishfinance (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GNG and NARTIST fail. Netherzone (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2020 (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.