Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marta Grigorieva (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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marta Grigorieva[edit]

[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)

I tagged this for notability two years ago as I couldn’t see three good sources. Sourcing is still poor. I have just added a Ham&High reference but still do not think she passes WP:NARTIST. Tacyarg (talk) 02:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Women. Tacyarg (talk) 02:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NARTIST. The editing history is suspect. Many single topic IP edits. The photo in the article is suspect, with the upload to the Commons as being created by the subject. No release info on that page. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Painter, while she has lower Notability, Notablity is still there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.212.247 (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think the editor of the unsigned !vote understands what "notable" means in this context. The artist is not notable according to Wikipedia standards. Her work isn't in any major collections, nor has she had work exhibited in any major or even minor museums. All the citations are from minor sources. Her book is self-published. The article is promotional in tone. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article on a painter is a promotional effort WP:PROMO. The sheer number of single purpose accounts WP:SPA in article history that have edited the page makes me think it's the work of a PR firm (paid editing?). Aside from that, the artist does not meet notability requirements for WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. The sourcing consists of four interviews (primary sources that don't count towards notability) one of which is with the Rosemont private client and corporate services firm (PR); two don't mention her at all; another has no byline and ends with plug with her contact info (Native advertising) or a press release. Fails WP:BASIC. It probably should be salted. Netherzone (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure whether it's a PR firm or the subject, I tried to engage with 66.135.171.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) without much luck as they didn't seem to be aware of Talk Pages. I think she's possibly borderline, but never found sufficient sourcing. Star Mississippi 19:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I too wondered if it's an autobiography. It's clear from the article history that the subject has edited the article (as Grigorieva89); whether or not they are also the many single purpose accounts (IP and registered SPA accounts), who is to say other than a CU? Either way, it seems that there may be coordinated editing going on, and for a long time – which is why I thought it may be a PR firm effort. But, focusing on content rather than contributors, it's PROMO and the notability is not there. Netherzone (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2022 (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.