Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebastian Bieniek


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Sebastian Bieniek

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has been deleted twice per WP:PROD already, once in 2015 (Reason given: self promotion article, questionable notability, most sources from his own website, major contributors have only contributed to this article) and once in 2008 (Reason given: Lacks references and notability - see WP:BIO). In 2016, the article was uploaded once again. As of today, this article has been written almost entirely by four accounts: Hansi-Klump (63 % of content), Balint-Gabor (28 %), Johnnycottonx (3 %) and Hamm-Ging (2 %). All four of these accounts belong to a ring of 33 sockpuppets blocked on the German Wikipedia after an extensive investigation. This block has been applied globally this week. All 33 sockpuppets were found to be operated by one person. As some of these accounts have uploaded pictures by Bieniek himself to Commons, the conclusion is that Bieniek has written this article all by himself, using fake identities over the course of almost ten years, spamming 44 different language versions of Wikipdia. Policies against sockpuppetry and COI editing aside, this article is a big balloon full of hot air. The majority of statements are sourced to Bieniek's website, mentions on 3rd party media are treated as if the article concerned itself only with Bieniek, his 5 minutes of fame are extended ad nauseam, projects from film school are treated like blockbusters, etc. etc. The text is nothing but blatant self-advertising and puffery. I see no valid reason for anyone to waste their time checking up on sources or "polishing the text", thus rewarding the breach of policy and cheating. For this very reason, these "auto-biographies" have been deleted in the French-language Wikipedia, the Italian-language Wikipedia and the German-language Wikipedia. I suggest we follow suit here. (These same reasons apply to Doublefaced, Bieniek-Face, The Gamblers (2007 film), Silvester Home Run as well, but lets focus on the main piece first.) Minderbinder (talk) 08:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   OxonAlex    - talk  08:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.   OxonAlex    - talk  08:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions.   OxonAlex    - talk  08:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * But isn't shameless self-promotion across Wikipedia just part of conceptual art? -- Hoary (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * With all the energy that's gone into creating this article, I'll make a working assumption that it has been sourced as well as is possible. Little of it is well sourced, and what is well sourced seems humdrum. Therefore delete. -- Hoary (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete the existing sourcing appears to be largely event announcements and other sources that simply confirm the event, screening or exhibition happened. there is scant sourcing in-depth coverage either in the article or in a new search.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Sourcing is weak and does not show in-depth coverage compliant with notability criteria. The article(s) are outright advertising irrelevant to the purpose of an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a personal website. The work is not in any museum collections, nor is the artist represented in art history books, nor is the artist a major figure in the contemporary art world. Fails WP:NARTIST. In light of the 33 socks likely belonging to the artist, suggesting WP:SALT so this self-promotional subject does not continue to reincarnate and waste editors time. Netherzone (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Having assessed the 127 sources this article had, which are now reduced to 22 after a few of us have removed the inconsequential clutter, I recommend to delete because it does not have enough reliable sources with WP:SIGCOV of the subject to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. By my estimation, those RS it does now have amount to only one exhibition review in Tages-Anzeiger and coverage of the same work around the same time in inferno-magazine.com, which is not a publication I am sure is reliable. Any mention there is in other RS (such as Vogue and Süddeutsche Zeitung) do not provide significant coverage. -Lopifalko (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete The sourcing is too weak overall to pass WP:GNG. Curiocurio (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2019 (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.