Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tatiana Badanina


 * 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. Tone 20:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Tatiana Badanina

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Likely fails WP:NBIO. A resume like article with some claims that are hard to verify; same creator at for Articles for deletion/Vladimir Nasedkin (2nd nomination), where an editor (User:Netherzone) already noted a failure to verify some assertions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  06:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I hope you don't mind me saying this Piotrus, I think you're being overly trigger-happy in nominating stuff for AFD. This artist was profiled in a long article on Isvestia (a Russian WP:NEWSORG, was covered in Taday (another newsorg), and on UGRA-NEWS (another newsorg). Passes WP:BASIC.FOARP (talk) 07:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't mind anyone who makes a valid argument, and if you show me I was wrong, I am happy to withdraw my nom or reconsider my vote. I don't read Russian, which limits my searchers, but using machine translation I can review sources presnted. calls them both world-famous, but other than that it's a WP:INTERVIEW.  devotes a single paragraph to each (as well as to a number of other artists who took part in this event).  sadly refuses to work for me with GTransalte, but it seems to be another interview. I don't think this is sufficient for me to withdraw this, as interviews and mentions in passing are IMHO not sufficient, but it is a start. Feel free to comment in the other linked AfD, particularly if you can help find more Russian language sources. What I'd love to find to convince me to keep them would be an in-depth article about their life and career, instead of just a brief note about one of their note in some exhibition or interviews (which per linked essay are problematic as a source). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the first ref states or would lead you reasonably to conclude that it's an interview - briefly quoting the artist does not make it so as it also includes a lot of description of the artist's work written by the author of the article. Regarding the second ref., a paragraph can still be WP:SIGCOV so long as includes detail and in this case, it does. Regarding the third, the introductory section is clearly not interview content and substantiates notability. WP:BASIC is met. Finally, I note this is one of ~30 articles that you have nom'd for deletion in the last ~24-48 hours. FOARP (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * PS - I also note from a very quick search on GScholar that the artist appears to have been the subject of a substantial piece in the Chiba University Humanities and Social Sciences Research Journal. FOARP (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I have to agree this is a bit quick on the trigger and should be withdrawn. Assuming the museum collection claims are true, the bar of WP:ARTIST 4d is very clearly met with many museum collections. it would be good to withdraw this as it needs cleanup, not deletion.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You may be right, but... is this really something that merits cleanup and not just WP:TNT? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I clearly am right: the museum collections make her notable. If you want to do TNT, then cut the article down. Don't nominate it for AFD, as you know it is not meant a cleanup process. There is significant good material in the article that could be cleaned up in ten minutes.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Comment - Two several collections checked out to be verifiable. I don't have time this morning to check the others, nor the shows. It's problematic that the sourcing is so poor, as she might in fact be notable as she is indeed notable. Nevertheless, the article is a resumé and there is a COI and needs significant improvement. Netherzone (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What's the COI? FOARP (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Both she and her husband, who edits as Владимир Наседкин (which translates to exactly his name) have worked on the page, and the page creator (a SPA) is most likely COI as they created both she and her husbands articles in the same unsourced resumé style. However, I do think her article should be kept and improved rather than WP:TNTing it. Netherzone (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. Perhaps a legitimate page could be written, but that one was clearly written as an advertisement and created by an account with obvious WP:COI. My very best wishes (talk) 04:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets WP:NARTIST, works held in several notable galleries/museums as brought out above. ps. any WP:COI issues can be resolved with relevant notications/tags/cleanup editing. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per criteria #4 of WP:NARTIST. The article can be tagged as needed for any issues.4meter4 (talk) 18:25, 23 October 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.