Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oksana Salamatina

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oksana Salamatina

[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 article about an art galerist was created by a paid editor. There are quite a few sources in the article, but all of them only present passing mentions, and none describes the subject or her activity in depth. Thus, the subject fails WP:GNG. I do not see correspondence to WP:CREATIVE either though it is of course formulates so broadly and unfortunately is interpreted even more broadly so that in principle any creative professional can pass. Ymblanter (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There are enough sources and she does have a WorldCat mention, a search with the ref tool finds one mention of her in the New York Times. Probably could use better primary sources... I could go either way on this one.Oaktree b (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a place you pay to get in, we must be vigilant in fighting against such behavior.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dislike @Ymblanter: starting an AfD entry with reference to author's paid contributions to other articles is quite manipulative. This way you convince anyone who dislike the concept of paid editing to show no mercy. You know Misha and probably know Timofei (both of them are primarily active in Russian Wikipedia), and all our contributions to art-related topics have always been voluntary.

Comment: Now to the point. TheArtGorgeous isn't the best source, but it's clearly not a passing mention. WP:CREATIVE doesn't formulate broadly by any means, it's unclear in regard to many creative professions. I addressed the point 3. She's a curator who doesn't create artistic works, but "creates" exhibitions. And Roberto Matta's exhibition in State Hermitage is actually a well-known "work" that won significant attention from both mainstream and art-related media. Birulik (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://theartgorgeous.com/oksana-salamatina/ is a terrible source. No, it's not a passing mention, but most of it is an interview, and it is not clear who conducted it, as it's bylined "Fempire". They don't appear to be a magazine that has any editorial oversight; they describe themselves as "a media company and community powerhouse" that develops "innovative concepts and strategies and create captivating content, closely working with our unparalleled network of global art world influencers and institutions". That doesn't sound like independent and reliable at all. Vexations (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me cite TheArtGorgeous About page as well. They clearly claim to be a "media company" and an "art entertainment magazine". They also have a print edition with an editorial board. They also seem to be focused on female artists / curators. The Fempire is a section, not an author. The publication in question obviously have two independent sections: a bio and a kind of interview/questionnaire. The bio is obviously the main part of the article. Let me sum it up: there's a female gallerist/curator bio in a female-focused art entertainment magazine with a print edition and editorial board. Does it sound reliable enough? Birulik (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Birulik, No way. That magazine's first issue is from Spring 2017, and the article you cite is from January 2016. The magazine didn't even exist. Vexations (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So what? The digital edition existed for 2 years prior to print one. The point is that they obviously have an editorial oversight. Having an editorial board on display is a good practice, but by no means an obligation in 2020. Birulik (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:TNT. Those who would like to keep the article must be allowed to start it from scratch though. Accesscrawl (talk) 05:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta elaborate my point about correspondence with the point 3 of WP:CREATIVE. That was the first Roberto Matta's exhibition in Russia. It also took place in one of the most important museums in Russia and the 2nd largest art museum in the world. That's quite an institutional support. I guess that the artist that had a solo/collaborative exhibition there will be considered notable without doubt. Birulik (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the basis of WP:TNT more than failing notability at WP:GNG. I really don't see anything salvageable from this hyper-hypertexted advertisement. Ifnord (talk) 21:30, 26 July 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.