Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadia Russ

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. --Coredesat 04:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nadia Russ

Nadia Russ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Reason for deletion: I feel that this is probably self promotion. There is little indication that the artist has had much impact beyond a small circle of friends. The article seems to be written by acquaintances of artist. There is a dearth of citations; most sources are unreliable, trivial, and/or unrelated to the subject of the article. Bus stop 21:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This is no reflection on the quality of the artist's work, which I would find a good reason to have an article, but unfortunately our guidelines are other and this article fails to meet them. Self-promotion isn't a reason in itself to delete, nor is material by friends. Failures to meet WP:NOTE and WP:VERIFY are reasons. This article does not have sufficient reliable sources to evidence the degree of prominence required. Tyrenius 21:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom. Freshacconci 21:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- I seem to remember this "NeoPopRealism" from a year or two ago (so, yes, there is a bit of self-promotion among the group.) Right now there appears to be only one or two notable sources, and those mention Russ only in passing. We should delete without prejudice to later recreation if, indeed, she garners significant attention from independent sources so we can actually write an article. Sdedeo (tips) 21:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete "NeoPopRealism" is a marketing term. It has nothing to do with visual art whatsoever. No scholarly use for the term exists, and none ever will exist. Wikipedia should not be exploited to promote mundane products, especially by lending it's tacit support to coined terms with an art cachet to them. To do so is to obscure the distinction between real terms applicable to the visual arts and marketing terminology without any real meaning at all. Bus stop 22:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Er, this AfD is about Nadia Russ, not NeoPopRealism - that's already been deleted. Also your argument is not a reason to delete anyway. If it is notable marketing terminology without any real meaning at all then we would keep it. Wiki is rather soulless like that. Tyrenius 22:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• But then perhaps it would be in a different category? Freshacconci 13:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• No, that would confirm the category without a doubt! Tyrenius 13:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, okay. But we're not talking about a notable marketing term using an art cachet, but an attempt at coining a marketing term using an art cachet, and exploiting wikipedia to establish it, which I think was Bus stop's point anyway. But still, as you said, we're talking about Nadia Russ, not the art movement she created. Freshacconci 14:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless properly sourced and referenced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 00:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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.