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. --BDD (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

United Art Rating

[edit]

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

WP:NBOOK Non-notable rating publication of 50,000 artists that is only useful commercially and adds no educational value about art and only includes basic information on the included artists. Could possibly be merged with the mother organization Artists Trade Union of Russia, but that doesn't strike me as being notable either. Considering that over half of the ratings in this publication are for beginning artists who will never be notable in their rated roles, I think deletion is in order. Jane (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also related AfD's Mario Zampedroni and Sergey Zagraevsky. Jane (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 September 2. Snotbot t • c » 19:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. Additionally, the article was deleted as a result of AfD discussion in the Russian Wikipedia, and the discussion failed to establish notability either.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. Looks like a legitimate project, there are no fees for entry ([1] #23). But it's WP:TOOSOON to establish notability. --Green Cardamom (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No fees for entry, but clearly fees for usage, as this database appears to be in book form only. Wikipedians will never use it, because larger and widely available commercial artist directories like artnet are online services that offer free lookup by last name, free thumbnails of art (including recent art that Wikipedia cannot host), and free metadata such as approximate birth-death dates and nationality. Jane (talk) 07:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They have digital access for a small fee.[2] There are libraries, and many reliable sources are only available as books, quite expensive ones too. Just because artnet has a free online index doesn't mean every other art index has to follow the same business model, or that Wikipedian's will never use books or pay for online access to a database (and many databases are available free through libraries). My point was, this resource does not appear to be a vanity press/vanity award scam, which typically require pay-to-enter (like Who's Who). They require no fee for inclusion nor solicit entrants. Rather it's just WP:TOOSOON to establish notability. It may never be notable. Or it may one day be the leading resourced, we have no crystal ball. Let's not demonize it unfairly just because it's not a free database. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2013 (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.