Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krista Kim


 * 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Krista Kim

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Promotional article that was cited to a flurry of promotional links and uncheckable dead links. 2017 PROD was declined. There was one actual RS actually about the artist. A WP:BEFORE shows passing mentions, mostly in publicity materials for an NFT put out by Lamborghini. I can't find any other solid biographical sources in actual solid RSes on the artist herself. I'd be delighted to be shown wrong, with said solid biographical sources in actual solid RSes, and not promotional venues, non-RSes etc. David Gerard (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, United Kingdom,  and United States of America. David Gerard (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure if it's the same person, but an artist with the same name sold an NFT house in March 2021 and got several hits about it in CNN, USA Today etc. I think those might make the individual notable, if this is the same person. Oaktree b (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - there seems to be a fair bit to work with. Bylined Forbes profile has quite a lot of bio information. This installation appears to have been covered quite a lot. Her virtual house NFT project got a lot of play - here's a CNN piece - and the resulting claims of fraud (NFTs, amirite) got some too. This is not my area, but I can try to build some of these into the article later and see where I can get. I suspect there's more to work with as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Forbes piece is a contributor blog, they aren't RSes. The CNN piece and Blogto (an RS?) is passing mentions at best. Surface piece might be usable though. I think the big problem is that the article is presently so obviously a press release that it'd need a rewrite from scratch. But if we have the sources, that's doable - David Gerard (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Has there been a discussion of the Forbes Contributor Program as an RS someplace? If so, I'd like to review it, because looking at the program it is an editor-reviewed offering that Forbes pays contributors for and tags with its editorial standards. If this was a marketing attempt by the artist, I'd expect to find this piece elsewhere, but there doesn't seem to be anything of the sort.
 * Re the others, I think I'd argue with 'passing mentions' - they directly revolve around her project. The BlogTO article was the one I was looking at at the time, there are other options out there. I will try to do a quick rewrite this evening and see what I can manage. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:FORBESCON is the WP:RSP entry specifically distinguishing Forbes RS content (staff bylines, from the print edition) from contributor blogs (not RSes and shouldn't be used, especially on a BLP - Forbes.com contributor articles should never be used for third-party claims about living persons.), and linking the discussions to this effect. Forbes contributor blogs are blog posts, not RSes, and shouldn't be used except in limited circumstances, and not as general references on a BLP as here - David Gerard (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I normally am perfectly fine with consensus here, but that one I would have argued hard about. I'm sorry to have missed that discussion, because it really discounts the work of freelance writers. I used the Forbes pieces for basic background information in the rewrite, but will attempt to find replacements if possible. 15:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC) Tony Fox (arf!) 15:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I've just given this a rewrite to get rid of the promotional tones, add inline citations, include multiple new sources, etc. in the process, I think I've affirmed notability - I've added sources from the NYT, USA Today, and Motor Trend (of all things). (Honestly, I feel like I need to wash my hands after working to bail out a flogger of NFTs but here we are.) Tony Fox (arf!) 04:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Stripped out a little more material based on the concerns with Forbes contributor articles. There's still plenty here to go on. I can also add mentions of her as part of the Louis Vuitton Louis 200 project currently underway, as well as a listing on a Fortune magazine 50 NFT innovators list. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - I did some general cleanup of this article to further neturalize the tone and highlight the relative importance of the notability centered around the NFTs. I did see several articles in Google News on this artist, and as a women artist and part of the WikiProjects: Women Artists, I think there's enough reason to include the brief article in wikipedia.  I agree with other editors that some more robust biographical data would be a benefit, but just because the notability established is relatively new and therefore not a lot of substantial biographical data is available, doesn't mean the topic isn't notable.   It's just in its infancy and will likely grow. Anyone who can create an NFT and sell it for >$500K USD, and get written up in the NY Times, Newsweek, and other major media sources is likely to continue this lucrative work..... and more information will become available for article expansion.  Just my editorial two-cents.   The Real Serena Joy Talk  23:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd be wary, most NFT purchases are wash trading in cryptos, often in order to write a press release. Also, Newsweek post-2013 is also specifically marked as a bad source on RSP - WP:NEWSWEEK. That's a bit of a tell - they promoted it in questionable sources like Newsweek. This is why writing about anything even slightly crypto, one has to be super strict on sourcing, NYT should be good though - David Gerard (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.