Wikipedia talk:AfC sorting/Culture/Visual arts

Paid-for drafts created by throwaway usernames

-- are numerous. I'd prefer not to spell out how it's obvious that the authors are professionals, with experience of en:WP that doesn't show up in their paltry lists of contributions: if I did spell it out, I'd be assisting them.

Or am I just imagining all this? -- Hoary (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, No you're not. It's pretty obvious. The thing to do I think is to follow the sources. There are many dubious publications that function as PR outlets. Take those down, one by one. Vexations (talk) 12:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations, there are also references to randomly selected publications (ranging from the obviously worthless to the incongruously highbrow) which say things that may be compatible with the assertions to which the references are attached, but which don't even mention the biographee. See what pass for references in this for example. (Except that they didn't pass; I flunked them.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, That's funny: The submitter doesn't seem to realize that we actually read the sources. Vexations (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But we hardly need even to look at them, do we? I mean, how deranged would one have to be to think that a somewhat obscure contemporary artist would pop up in an article on "Moral Responsibility" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy? And in order to confirm our suspicions, no need to read: we simply click on the link and then Ctrl-f (Windows/Linux) or Command-f (Mac), whereupon we fail to find what we didn't think we'd find. -- Hoary (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]