Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semkovskaia

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. So Why 14:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semkovskaia

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

This is a puff piece about a non-notable painter, it fails every point on WP:ARTIST (contested prod). eh bien mon prince (talk) 08:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has significant coverage in reliable sources press coverage such as Publimetro Colombia, La República, El Nuevo Siglo, Globedia, Guadalupe Garcia, Destinos para viajeros, Notas de Acción, and Notivariedade as linked in the article so passes WP:GNG which overrides WP:NARTIST . Any promotionalism can be cleaned up.Atlantic306 (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How many of those sources count as reliable? Globedia is user contributed which clearly rules it out. And coverage needs to significant as well, and it's far from obvious that either criterion is satisfied in this case.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

see my comment below: four of the sources are weak/reliable, but they all refer to one event. Most of the sources were either duplicated, unreliable, puffed up or used to support claims the sources did not contain. There was a lot of intentional manipulation of weak sources to make the article look larger than it is. AFD was a good call.104.163.153.14 (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The main contributor has an undisclosed conflict of interest with the subject. Mduvekot (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An obvious puff piece by the artist. (IMHO no one except the artist has the willpower and persistence to construct an article on such a thin case of notability.) I removed Globepedia as a source (a Spanish Wikipedia variant) and several blogs tat were being used as sources. I also discovered numerous instances where the references given did not support the claim. I removed several duplicate refs that were two-sentence announcements for talks, and the entire section called "newspapers that mention..." as it was just a way of duplicating hte inline refs. After all that there are three or four weak but acceptable sources that all refer to one event-- the large mural she painted in Columbia. At most it is BLP1E. Fails each count of WP:ARTIST. 104.163.153.14 (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-Notable. I'm pretty certain I voted to delete her before, when the result was delete, but the time has flown by since September, when it was re-created. -Roxy the dog. bark 16:26, 24 July 2017 (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.