Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoetica Ebb

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. Daniel (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zoetica Ebb[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)

Lacking WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources; mostly just mentions or coverage from obscure sites. There is an interview at LA Weekly, but that's about it that would qualify. Prod was disputed.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Photography. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - At first glance this appears to be a well sourced article, but don't be fooled by the 49 sources. When examining each the vast majority are 404 dead pages, "forbidden - you don't have permission" links, and other error messages. The rest of the sources are simple name-check mentions, primary sources to her gallery, primary source interviews with no editorial content, press releases, blogs, or don't mention her at all. The only possibly usable source, as mentioned in the nom, is a single piece in the L.A. Weekly, but it's still an interview thus not fully independent. This sort of ref-bombed article is usually an attempt to give the impression of notability, which I think may be the case for this article. I was going to prune back all the unusable refs, but think it's better to first do an online BEFORE. I'll !vote once I see if I can find any independent SIGCOV in RS's. Netherzone (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After a BEFORE search online it seems the artist actively posts about herself on social media and blogs. I found a few photo credits, a kickstarter, an Etsy store, gallery listings, but no notable exhibitions, reviews or museum collections, thus failing WP:NARTIST, and as stated above, no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, thus failing WP:GNG. Nothing significant on Google News, or Google Books. Altho the article has existed here for a while tt's WP:TOOSOON, as she does not meet notability criteria. It may have existed so long due to the fact that ref-bombing can give the appearance of notability.
Netherzone (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2023 (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.