Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marguerite Humeau


 * 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 keep. Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Marguerite Humeau

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

First major show just this year; not enough RS; not notable. Baum des Lichtes (talk) 06:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but I really think her work is quite big already to be notable. There are alr day a lot of references and people who look her up, a neutral entry of her would be important in my eyes. The palais de Tokio is a very big deal and in my eyes a very good qualifier. Iszilagyi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Neutral for now (see below) (pending further info on article creator COI and verifying exhibition claims). If Palais de Tokyo, MoMA, Victoria and Albert Museum, Serpentine Galleries and Manifesta can all be verified, this passes WP:ARTIST. The lack of reliable sources is worrisome but her exhibition record appears to put this over the top.  freshacconci  talk to me  14:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete . This page appears to have been created by an undeclared paid editor (see or for that matter this), and is thus an advertisement. Wikipedia does not allow WP:PROMOTION of any kind. A neutral entry would be indeed be desirable if Humeau can be shown to be notable, but this is not it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Justlettersandnumbers, with respect, COI is not a factor in any policy related to AfD discussions. COI is obviously not desired, but COI editors often create articles that are ultimately kept. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , this is not simple WP:COI, it is to all appearances undeclared paid editing, and thus in contravention of the Terms of Use of the Foundation. We delete such articles regardless of notability, but without prejudice to subsequent re-creation by a non-connected editor, exactly as was done in the Orangemoody case. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Following discussion at User talk:Iszilagyi, I've struck my delete. Good faith demands that I accept the explanation offered there. The arguments I offered in support of deletion are (I believe) still valid, but do not apply here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Humeau is notable per WP:ARTIST. Her work is the the collection of the Museum of Modern Art (which meets WP:ARTIST 4d). See here She participated in Manifesta 11 and Extenction Marathon at the Serpentine Gallery See here, (which satisfies WP:ARTIST 4b), and had a solo show in the Palais de Tokyo. See here. Mduvekot (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see how it could be anything other than keep. Google news search is dripping with high-quality sources directluy discussing her work. Palais de Tokyo is a SERIOUS venue! If you get there as an artist, you are notable. The New York Times has a full article on her? When you look at other sources along with this, this seems like a case of widely reported independent sources establishing notability.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The COI is definitely there, but I think this actually passes GNG, with good indepth coverage in mainstream sources. For example NYTimes article, NPR.org, Huffington post, Discover Magazine. Her works seems to have received significant critical (and mainstream) attention. This is one of the rare artists I have seen recently who passes GNG quite easily. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep With all the new info, this is now a firm keep. The paid-for-contributing is an issue and if the article was very long and detailed with lots of fluff, I would be inclined to vote to nuke it and start again. As it is, it's short enough that an editor can spend 20 minutes reworking it. My guess is that it wasn't the artist herself hiring the editor but possibly a gallery representing her. I don't know the ins-and-outs of the Wiki foundation, but it would be nice if a strongly worded missive from someone with authority could be sent to the gallery. They are doing a disservice to their artists by going this route. Humeau is notable (regardless of her depressingly young age) and this has the potential to damage her reputation, not the gallery's. It's too bad but at least we can rectify that here and minimize the damage.  freshacconci  talk to me  14:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , I agree with you here. This kind of paid-for-contributions are actually a disservice to the artist. More importantly, once a paid-for article is created, it usually contains a lot of promotional stuff which volunteer editors have to clean-up, something referred to as WP:BOGOF editing. I usually tend to ask for a TNT for such articles. This one is quite short (and an exception), which is why I voted for a keep here. I am going to leave another note on the article creator's page about this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

*Keep This article subject passes WP:GNG and should be retained. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 21:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC) (Banned sock HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC))
 * Keep With the list of exhibitions and sources, she is definitely passes WP:ARTISTS. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This seems like it could be closed now, with a fairly clear concensus.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.