Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illma Gore


 * 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Illma Gore

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article fails general notability guidelines, as well as WP:BLP1E. Illma Gore painted Trump with a micropenis in 2016, and was repeatedly blocked by eBay for trying to sell the painting and temporarily blocked from Facebook for a violation of their "no nudity" policy. These blockings garnered more attention than the actual artwork. I went through the article a couple of months ago, and found the sources lacking: primary sources and a Wikipedia article being used as a source, and Gore not being mentioned in most of the higher-quality sources. I'd ordinary just redirect this article to the most notable topic, but in Gore's case that's Indecline—a production company known for creating videos of stoned teenagers jumping out of vans and assaulting unsuspecting homeless people ("Bumfights"). In my opinion, Indecline should be deleted as well. But that's a discussion for another day. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Maybe a small sub-section in an Anti-Trump article, not much to show she's notable otherwise. Just an angry artist. Oaktree b (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep meets GNG with significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, and clears BLP1E because she has received coverage for more than one work of art (three in fact). Furthermore, coverage for the Micropenis portrait was sustained, and covered multiple facets of the work, thus BLP1E is a hard case to make there. It is disingenuous to say that the work was only covered because she was blocked. The work was covered because the image spread widely on social media. And ad hominem attacks by trying to suggest she is somehow related to Bumfights, or calling her "Just an angry artist" are POV. Theredproject (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Source quality remains an issue. I removed all the worst quality sources prior to nomination, but the article still uses several exceptionally poor quality references, including Narratively, data-mining company Vocativ, primary source Artnet, as well as a source which I only now realise is a WP:BLOG piggy-hopping on the name of the long-ago (1984) out-of-publication Lip (magazine). That's a good chunk of the current article. Looking further into the sources, "Marriage Equality" was not Gore's project, but a stunt by several protesters; the Mexico/Arizona border project received little attention; and there's nothing in the article indicating that Gore's human blood painting was ever completed. So really only one of Gore's art projects received sustained coverage from reliable third party sources, and the sources currently included on the article spend more time discussing her bans from social media and eBay than the actual painting. Also, I never "[tried] to suggest she is somehow related to Bumfights", but that the one project she is most famous for was associated with the production company that made Bumfights. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per Hoeostasis07's good analysis that shows that we lack the significant 3rd-party coverage that would be needed to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's rare indeed when I agree with Johnpacklambert, but he and Homeostasis07 are both spot on here. There are not enough independent sources demonstrating notability. Deus et lex (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete definitely feels like a borderline 1E situation with little in the way of significant coverage at the time and very little sourcing after the fact to demonstrate notability. Sourcing is extremely borderline to poor. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 17:25, 18 April 2021 (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.