Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladimir Nasedkin (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. With the caveat that a recreation as a well sourced article with quality text is still possible, as many participants have indicated that the topic may be notable but its current writeup be poor. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Nasedkin[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)

Prodded long ago, still reads like a resume, fails WP:NARTIST, on indication of in-depth coverage, or that any awards/etc. are major. AfD from a while back ended as keep with a single keep vote from an editor now banned as a sock. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that the subject fails WP:NARTIST if the claims in the Collections section are true. Those are some of the most important collections in Russia, if not the world. Unfortunately, I have not been able to confirm any of them, which maybe due to my reliance on machine translations. If they can be sourced, Nasedkin meets criterion 4(d):The person's work (or works) has ... been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Vexations (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In it's present form this resumé does not make the cut as an article, however, if the several of the museum collections can be proven with verifiable RS's, the article would pass. Netherzone (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As written, this is just a personal resume, and a completely unsourced one. Was he actually represented anywhere? We do not know. Russian language links on the page look like that - empty. Same with page Tatiana Badanina, created by same accounts, with obvious WP:COI problem My very best wishes (talk) 01:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Perhaps a legitimate page could be created, but that one was clearly written as an advertisement and created by an account with obvious WP:COI. My very best wishes (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I checked several of the collections listed in this article, and they all came up unverifiable. There is no way to know whether his work is actually in the museum collections listed in this unsourced article. Netherzone (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, appears to have been copied from Russian WP (that unfortunately has the same external links), English version created 24 May 2013 while Russian version created 27 November 2012, also, both articles created by the same user, doesn't look good. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, a patient editor (alas, not i:)) may be able to find enough sources to save this article, have found some ie. has exhibited at Erarta (Geometry of Light joint exhibition 2016), Saratov Art Museum (Actual Russia: Adult Choice group exhibition 2019), Museum of Moscow (Red Wings of Constructivism group exhibition 2016), one of the founders of Moscow Museum of Modern Art's School of Contemporary Art ‘Free Workshops’, but more may be needed? Coolabahapple (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, your first link shows he had an exhibition in Erarta, so he arguably may pass WP:NARTIST - 4b. My very best wishes (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~, subject to massive TNT. This is obviously a promotional autobiography. I suggest keep, and that we delete all unsourced items. Notability is established weakly by items kindly found by Coolabahapple. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Switched to Delete. It has existed too long without inline sourcing. It does need complete TNT, which may as well be deletion in this case, as there will be nothing left after TNT. Is someone recreates it in properly sourced form at some point in the future, that would be acceptable.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tatiana Badanina where User:Netherzone discusses a likely COI (the two related articles might have been created by the subject of his family). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. There's just too much stuff that would have to be cut out for it to be stubified. The article makes a claim that works of his are in the Hermitage and other major art museums, but lack any wat to prove it much less good citations. Bearian (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to it being recreated in future, should someone find adequate sources for the claims which on the face of it are ample enough for WP:ARTIST. It has been in the same state since it was created in 2013, so there is no indication that anyone is so far willing to do that. -Lopifalko (talk) 04:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete He may well be notable - his name certainly appears in Russian language publications and exhibition catalogues. It would need someone who can read Russian, and probably also has access to more than Google Books snippet views, to assess those sources. I haven't yet found his work in any museum collections. There are other Nasedkins - an artist called Nikolaj Nikolaevic Nasedkin, also born in 1954; an architect called Sergei Nasedkin; a pianist called Alexander Nasedkin - etc. This Nasedkin has certainly had exhibitions, but finding reviews of them would, again, need someone with access to Russian language sources and the ability to read them. This [1] is more promotional than a review. So, delete for now, no prejudice against recreation with sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2019 (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.