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. Consensus is clear that we're unable to verify claims to notability Star Mississippi 01:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aida Hanemayer (Lisenkova) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was deleted after discussion, on December 25 2018. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aida Hanemayer (Lisenkova)). It appears to have been reinstated without discussion by User:Олег Черкасский in January 2020 on the basis of an alleged mention in a Russian newspaper (not cited) (see Talk page). This user was the sole defender of the article during the original AfD discussion. At some point, the record of the deletion was falsified on the talk page so that the link to the deletion referred to WP:articles for deletion/Example instead of to the true deletion discussion. I have corrected this. The article should be deleted immediately I think on grounds of the previous deletion, the unacceptable behaviour of User:Олег Черкасский, and of WP:NOTABLE and WP:PROMOTION. Smerus (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And btw the pictures by this artist should be removed from WikiMedia - they are simply self-publicity. I have started this.--Smerus (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep It appears she is in some collections which would pass WP:ARTIST, although verification isn't that clear. Curiocurio (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. We should not delete it solely on the basis of the behaviour of its main author. The talk page comment that is referred to is:

Kultura newspaper - the main newspaper about culture in Russia. An article in this newspaper is proof of the person's significance. Aida's works are in several museums in Russia. This is enough for a Wikipedia article.

This is presumably the first reference in the 'Additional sources' section, where there is a link to images of the newspaper (not copied here as it may be a copyvio). This newspaper is Kultura, the article is on page 14 and looks like a review of an exhibition. This is a good source, but is not sufficient to meet WP:SIGCOV. It is difficult to assess the other sources without a knowledge of the reliability and significance of Russian sources. It would help if links were provided to English or Russian Wikipedia articles on the cited newspapers and websites.

If it can be clearly established that her work is in the permanent collections of the Pushkin Museum and the Odesa Museum of Western and Eastern Art then I think this would be sufficient to keep the article per WP:ARTIST.

The pictures should not be deleted from Commons while they are in use in . Verbcatcher (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I find these 'weak keep' reponses rather eccentirc, in view of the fact that the page was already deleted and has been reinstated against WP rules. In the circumstances it could in fact be eligible for a speedy delete (WP:G4).--Smerus (talk) 07:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Smerus: WP:G4 only applies to sufficiently identical copies of a deleted page. I don't have access to the deleted page so I cannot assess whether this applies. I was assessing the article in its current state. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cf by the way the disucssion at the similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Dolgorukova. The creator of both these articles has now been blocked indefinitely for undisclosed paid editing.--Smerus (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Question actually - why is this article titled Aida Hanemayer (Lisenkova)? Wikipedia generally doesn't put a maiden name, married name or alias in parenthesis in the title. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  When it is (one hopes) deleted, this query will be resolved.--Smerus (talk) 07:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NARTIST and the article was originally written by an editor with COI, most likely paid for creation. No reliable source for date/year of birth. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per WP:TNT. I have given this article a great deal of thought, and think it is best to delete it. It was created as a promotional article by a blocked COI/UPE editor, and contains unverifiable and/or dubious claims. I went through the sourcing, slowly translating items. In addition to the lack of key biographic material (such as birthdate per WomenArtistUpdates), it appears that there are inaccuracies in the "museum collections". One seems to be simply a gift by the artist (not works curated into a collection), while another was a long exhibition (and not a permanent collection), most could not be verified at all (even using multiple variations on her name.) What is clear that she is a Russian painter. Notability may be there, but in its current state the article contains what is either misinformation or poorly translated text (AGF), therefore does not have the verifiability, reliability and quality that the encyclopedia strives for. It seems beyond fixing (even after much trimming and pruning), and therefore would be better to blow it up and start over. If she is truly notable, an unconnected editor will recreate it in time. The policy on this is WP:DEL-REASON: "Reasons for deletion include... 14. Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia." Similarly, WP:ATD states that "If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion." Netherzone (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TNT. The fixes have not worked. It still fails GNG and WP:HEY. I also note that having one documented single work of art in one major art museum is not sufficient to pass WP:CREATIVE. Bearian (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.