Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sascha Bailey

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. Missvain (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sascha Bailey

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable due to insufficient WP:SIGCOV in RS. Other sources are either not verifiable, or not independent (self-written). May be created and largely written by user with WP:COI, potentially WP:Autobiography. Overall seems to fail WP:BASIC criteria for BLP. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 08:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 08:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 08:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 08:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 08:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to be notable adding citation that is missing.is easy to do as there are a wealth of articles regarding this indvidiual the user requesting deletion seems to of created the crypto art page and may have a personal reason for deletion of this page.

While one of the references is self written this just seems to be in reference to who he is married too. The rest are the times. Daily mail etc and clearly not self written. The user attempting deletion also deleted this article from the cryptoart page https://fadmagazine.com/2018/12/14/sascha-bailey-aims-to-modernise-the-art-industry-with-new-blockchain-play/

Showing a clear want to remove this individual from Wikipedia for personal reasons.

Futher argument for Keeping is aside from the citations here s quick Google Search of this individual throws up 100s of results about art exhibitions modeling etc. As well as well over 800 photos on getty images. Deletion of acting section makes sense. However, given the sheer volume of google results this person has deletion of the whole page seems like over kill.

More references to art curation can be found with ease i.e https://www.wonderlandmagazine.com/2016/10/04/maverick-expo-fenton-sascha-bailey/

Proof of this individuals work in blockchain or crypto art is also available in many diffrent publications https://www.artmarket .guru/le-journal/interviews/blockchain-art-exchange/ (url broken up due to Wikipedia not alowing this site. However it is not of note to be added He is also featured as an expert on Crypto art in this business insider magazine article

https://www.businessinsider.com/64-billion-art-bitcoin-blockchain-picasso-lincoln-townley-2020-7

Futher and although this video cannot be used as citation due to it being hosted on a comoany youtube channel. It was originally posted to London live and Is useful in this discussion https://youtu. be/ojHS7NXE0_8 (url added space to wiki rules)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.98.225.156 (talk) 10:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.98.225.156 (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @User:49.98.225.156, do not edit other user's comments here, especially not the AfD creation comment and top section information. If you would like to refute arguments do so by creating a new bullet point at the very bottom of this discussion or a sub-bullet point under the comment you would like to reply to. I've moved your additions down below the top section information. I did not create the Crypto art article, I have contributed to the introductory portions. I've not removed any links from that article at all, I don't think I've ever seen that Fadmagazine link referenced on that article honestly. Unsubstantiated claims of malice against other editors are likely only to weaken your arguments in these forums. In terms of WP:Notability, the bar for verifiable WP:Reliable Sources is especially high for a biographical article on a currently living person (see WP:BIO). Notability stems from non-trivial mentions of the subject in mainstream, reputable sources and by professional journalists or writers with editorial oversight. Here is a quote directly from WP:INVALIDBIO:
"Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (for example, Google hits or Alexa ranking), or measuring the number of photos published online."
Business Insider is considered a questionable source so it may (or may not) contribute towards notability. The other sources are smaller publications and don't have a ton of reputation to provide WP:Verifiability, at least from what I can tell, you even acknowledged that one of the links you gave was not allowed by Wikipedia. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 11:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For more general information on how the deletion and discussion process works, see Help:AFD. Let's wait for others to give their thoughts on the matter. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 11:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Feels a ton like a UPE creation, creating editor Quiteuselessart ceased to exist onsite after creating this article, and had no prior editing history. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 11:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment other than the uk and usa press that is provided times daily mail etc more press canbe found in the japanese media for example http://www.tokyoartbeat.com/event/2017/B894.en More in regards to this canbe gound by googling baileys icons tokyo. This page has existed For several years and has had many deletions attempts. Which have all been pushed down. Citation to the times was added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.98.225.156 (talk) 12:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Daily mail is a deprecated source. To add a new bullet point, precede your comment with the * symbol. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 12:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment further citation to frist exibition held can be found here https://www.tatler.com/gallery/fenton-and-sascha-baileys-human-relations-private-view-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.98.225.156 (talk) 12:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment for easier reference the citations added at 6 is this link https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-kids-are-all-right-zzc0mqjjsxn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.98.225.156 (talk) 12:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep op here. This page was created during an exhibition sascha bailey had in 2016 in tokyo. Since then it has been maintained and added too over time. There are plenty of references from the daily mail Times and othe. the self written reference was not included in this article at the onset. After creation this post was attempted to be deleted so it was changed to be more neutral. While it has only postive press here is an example of some negative hope this helps balance the page https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2496672/MOS-Diary-David-Baileys-boy-swaps-Lucian-Freud-trip-Hong-Kong-launch-modelling-career.htmldelling-career.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quiteuselessart (talk • contribs) 12:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment so far in this discussion links to tatler, daily mail twice (one very negative) given one is deprecated but im sure you could find it on the wayback machine. The Times twice. Business insider. Wall steet international. London live again deprecated unfortunately but the evidence exists. As well as multiple small press outlets. That would give at least 5 extra citations. The japanese news is hard to find but it can be. This page can clearly be amended to be more neutral and the acting credit removed. But based on these major outlets. I put the case forward that deletion is unnecessary. Given all the links and citations provided, this person is of note and continues to be of note in the blockchain community. The links and citations for this i have provided above. Futher, it is clear that the yser asking for deletion has no Real knowledge of the crypto art space and edits that page sectively due to his own acknowledgment that he had not even seen the article from the upcoming in 2018 citing Sascha bbailey as one of the frist ppeople to create a crypto art eexchange. Finally he also seeks to delete the meta mask page this displays an unbelievable lack of knowledge about crypto etheruem or crypto art given that it is tthe most used plugin for this sector. All his edits on any crypto related suject should in this case be treated as highly suspicious.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.98.225.156 (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I created the MetaMask page, I do not seek to delete it. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 17:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per moonythedwarf, furthermore, the sourcing doesn’t portray the subject of our discussion as being notable. Celestina007 (talk) 04:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of WP:SIGCOV and WP:TOOSOON. Attorneys and art curators just get started at 26 years of age. Bearian (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2020 (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.