Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annalaura di Luggo

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 no consensus. But likely delete next time around if not improved. Sandstein 19:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Annalaura di Luggo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article is terribly sourced: most of the references link to videos or articles in Italian, which even then do not appear to prominently mention the subject. Most of the content is promotionalism/puffery and there is no indication that subject meets WP:GNG. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I find no evidence that her works are "in the collections of galleries in Miami, New York, Paris, Sao Paulo, Istanbul, Monte Carlo, etc" - in fact, her bio on other sites states that she has "exhibited" in those places. The "galleries" in Italy which hold her work are in a school for the blind and a prison - admirable, but not meeting WP:CREATIVE, "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums". Reference 14 is actually a review of her work Blind Vision in ArtPulse, but it seems to be the only review, rather than press release, etc. So she hasn't "won significant critical attention", either. (And just as an aside, the article which Blind Vision is linked to here is about a song, not about her film!) RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RebeccaGreen, you can delete those claims from the article if you think they are not true. You can also tag such claims with templates like

This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

^{[failed verification]} and so on.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This article is the kind of promotional garage that we should avoid. However I see some articles in the sources that look like in-depth coverage. Can an Italian speaker give us a better idea of their quality? I deleted numerous passages of puffery, for example "She has hosted on her boat several Hollywood stars." (sourced by Youtube) ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article worth keeping on en-Wiki if none of the sources are comprehensible to the average reader? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course. If sources are available in other languages, they are as good as sources in English. They just need to exist. That's the policy.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Week Keep and Significantly Rework. The tone itself is very promotional, but there are quite enough sources to pass WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am leaning towards agreeing with Arthistorian1977. I strongly agree that we should not make decisions on articles where the sources are in another language that none of the AfD contributors speak. In cases such as this, we need guidance from someone who speaks the language. Google translate only goes so far.Theredproject (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have removed what puffery I could see and any obviously not RS or primary references. From what remains, I am not sure this artist is notable, and am skeptical of the value of the sources. Not certain enough as of yet as to whether I would keep this or delete it. Isingness (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Source notes. I looked at a smatering fo the sources in Google translate.

• ref #1 one of many articles about her Blind Vision project. Short, not in-depth, looks like a lot of name dropping.
• ref #3: a very short event announcement in a magazine, with what sounds like promo copy about the project.
• ref #5: a fairly long event announcement for a solo show in a university magazine that looks to be RS.
• ref #7 can be read in English here: http://artpulsemagazine.com/blind-vision
• ref #8: Didici magazine. Reads like a press release, although it has an author.
• ref #9: Ioarte, whose site description translates to "promotion of emerging artists"> Article has some good things but finished with her CV, so likely not RS.
• ref #10 Dodici magazine again. A minor review of the blind vision project.

From the above I will say very weak keep and agree with ArtHistorian that it needs a significant rework. There's decent but not particularly in-depth coverage, mostly about the Blind Vision project. I'm almost neutral on this, it could also be deleted without a problem.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:18, 26 November 2018 (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.