Talk:Anna Delvey

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Anna Sorokin, facing criminal charges, refused to enter the courtroom for her trial because she did not like her outfit? Source: Shamsian, Jacob. "Alleged 'socialite scammer' Anna Delvey refused to show up to court on Friday because she didn't like her outfit". Insider.
  • ALT1:... that while Anna Sorokin was in jail, one of her guests was Julia Garner, who was playing her on Netflix? Source: Florsheim, Lane (November 23, 2020). "Julia Garner on Meeting Anna Delvey at Rikers and Watching 'The Vow'". Wall Street Journal.
  • ALT2:... that convicted fraudster Anna Sorokin frequently gave a hotel's staff hundreds of dollars for simple tasks, but she was evicted after being unable to pay a $30,000 bill? Source: Pressler, Jessica (May 28, 2018). "How an Aspiring 'It' Girl Tricked New York's Party People — and Its Banks". The Cut
  • ALT3:... that convicted fraudster Anna Sorokin got a helicopter ride from Blade without paying the $35,000 fare upfront because its management trusted her? Source: Dickson, E. J. (April 9, 2019). "How Anna Delvey Managed to Scam Her Way Into a $35,000 Charter Plane Ride". Rolling Stone.

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Roosseno Soerjohadikoesoemo
• Comment: I (Epicgenius) am just the nominator and have nothing to do with the article's improvement

Improved to Good Article status by Firefly (talk). Nominated by Epicgenius (talk) at 18:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC).

• General eligibility:

• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Fascinating article, with some really great hooks. GA'd recently, no issues with copyvio, length or sourcing. I like ALT1 but am suggesting a change to that so we can include a link to the miniseries as well. It's a shame that there's no properly licensed image, but oh well. The only thing missing is the QPQ, once that's done I'll be ready to promote this. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Suggesting ALT1b:... that while convicted fraudster Anna Sorokin was in jail, one of her guests was Julia Garner, who will playing Sorokin in the the Netflix miniseries about her?

Not sure whether I need to do the QPQ as the article expander, or Epic as the nominator. If me, I reviewed this one recently. As for the hook, I'd suggest "... who will play Sorokin in the Netflix miniseries about her", as the series is still in production, and I think "in" works better grammatically. firefly ( t · c ) 06:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Good catch, I edited ALT1b to include the future tense. Per the rules, the nominator has to be the one to do QPQ. I messaged Epicgenius on his talkpage so hopefully that will be ready soon.BuySomeApples (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

BuySomeApples, apologies for nit-picking but we still have some tense disagreement there. "who will playing" should either be "who will play" or "who will be playing". Thanks! firefly ( t · c ) 12:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Firefly: Don't worry about the QPQ, I think it's my responsibility since I nominated it. I just added a review here - I forgot to add it earlier but I found time to do a review just now.

BuySomeApples Thanks for the review and sorry for not getting back earlier. I've added a QPQ now. For ALT1b I can suggest ALT1c: ... that while convicted fraudster Anna Sorokin was in jail, one of her guests was Julia Garner, who will play Sorokin in the the Netflix miniseries about her? Epicgenius (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

That hook definitely works @Epicgenius:, thanks for finishing the QPQ! BuySomeApples (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• Approving ALT1c. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

To T:DYK/P3

Portrait size

Greetings, all. Part of the blatant lack of neutrality extant in the article, as already brought forward in this talk page, is the banner-large size of the portrait of our subject. It is a photograph taken by a professional photographer by order of out subject. I suggest we cut down the promotional nature of all this, starting by cutting down the image to 40 percent of its current hagiographic status. Suggestions? -The Gnome (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

There is no evidence to suggest that the image was commissioned by Delvey or that she has any connection to its distribution. It is a photograph taken by a photographer during a press line at a public event and was released under a free license. It does not present the subject in any promotional way whatsoever other than the fact that it was taken at a public appearance.

The dimensions of the photo in this infobox are no different than those that appear in millions of other BLP articles that are at the default scaling. The fact that it is actually a good photo doesn't make it "promotional". RachelTensions (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Hate the current picture, definitely didn't commission it. Please delete it- along with the entire article Theannadelvey (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Contentious labels and pending appeal

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Disclosure: I am the subject of this article (WP:COI). Per WP:COIADVICE I am not editing the article myself; raising this for uninvolved editors and tagging .

Two issues with the opening “is a con artist and fraudster.”

1. WP:LABEL — both terms are contentious and neither matches the conviction. The 2019 conviction was on eight counts: three of grand larceny, one of attempted grand larceny, and four of theft of services (NY Penal Law larceny offenses). There was no conviction for any offense named “fraud,” and “con artist” has no legal basis. WP:LABEL directs that value-laden labels be replaced with a plain statement of sourced facts. The two labels also duplicate one function. Proposed opening:

“…was convicted in 2019 of grand larceny and theft of services after [conduct], a conviction she is appealing.”

This is more precise and better-sourced than the current wording, not merely less negative.

2. WP:BLP — the conviction is under appeal and the lead omits this. The conviction remains on direct appeal and is therefore not final. WP:BLP requires special care with contentious claims about living persons; presenting the conviction without noting the pending appeal overstates its finality. The appeal should be noted in the lead.

I’m not disputing that the conviction is the primary basis of notability or that it belongs in the first sentence, only the imprecise labels and the missing appeal status. Open to alternative wordings. Theannadelvey (talk) 03:43, 24 June 2026 (UTC) Theannadelvey (talk) 03:43, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Not done: your request appears to have been generated by a large language model. Day Creature (talk) 06:51, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Reactivated (|answered=no). The decline addressed authorship, not content, but WP:LABEL and WP:BLP turn on the wording, not on who drafted it. Both points above are specific and sourced: “con artist”/“fraudster” don’t map to a larceny conviction, and the lead omits the pending appeal. Can an uninvolved editor weigh them on the merits? Theannadelvey (talk) 08:28, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

No. You will need to communicate without the aid of your AI. See WP:NOLLM and WP:LLMTALK. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

The lead currently calls me "con artist and fraudster". Both are redundant pejoratives. I was convicted of larceny, not fraud. The lead also does not mention that my conviction is still on appeal. Can someone reasonable and unbiased look at this, under WP:LABEL and WP:BLP, please? Theannadelvey (talk) 23:34, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Your edit request was not fulfilled because it was written using an LLM, which has been pointed out twice yet you appear to ignore that reasoning. Beta Beta Beta - talk 23:39, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

How exactly do you expect me to address this reasoning? You cannot reliably prove that LLM has been used, and I’m frankly insulted that the anonymous editors on this site collectively decided that I, the subject of this contentious and error-ridden article, posting from a verified account, wouldn’t be able to put together a paragraph asking you for these very simple and reasonable edits of facts that I would obviously know about myself, while politely following the guidelines you created. Which part is so fantastical? Do you need me to rewrite it in a different accent? Theannadelvey (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I have added a POV tag to the article and recommend an WP:RFC and WP:GA reassessment to ensure the rules of WP:BLP are followed. After a cursory glance at the archive I did not see WP:CONSENSUS for the current lead paragraph but one may exist somewhere other than the archive. It is not a typical MOS:OPENing but there appears to be some supportive sources. I'm not familiar with the source "The Cut (publication)", so it may be worth looking at WP:RSP if there is any doubt. Cheers. DN (talk) 06:00, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Redundant pejoratives in lead

I'm the subject of this article therefore this is a

.

Con artist and fraudster in my opening description are two contentious and redundant pejoratives that are also not legally accurate - I was convicted of larceny, not fraud (public record). There is also no mention that my conviction is currently on direct appeal (also public record). I request that the lead instead use neutral and factual language to describe me and my conviction and note the pending appeal. Theannadelvey (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

According to Marie Claire and The New York Times, Sorokin was sentenced to four to 12 years in prison on one count of attempted grand larceny, three counts of grand larceny, and four counts of theft of services. The NYTimes also states that the subject was acquitted of stealing $60K from a friend for a trip to Morocco. If the subject were convicted of larceny alone, then WP:BLPCRIME should, in theory, limit the descriptors used in the article to those involving larceny and theft of services. New York State defines larceny using an array of descriptors, including:

By conduct heretofore defined or known as common law larceny by trespassory taking, common law larceny by trick, embezzlement, or obtaining property by false pretenses

Since the term "con artist" describes using confidence to obtain property, that would seem to be covered by "trick, embezzlement, or false promises". Theft of services in New York ranges from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class E felony. As far as the term "fraud", New York State similarly lists a large volume of crimes under the term "fraud" but since the subject apparently wasn't convicted for any of them, we can safely dispose of the term "fraudster". I think it's important to mention continuing appeals until they run their course, but "as of" would be a far better preposition to use than "currently". I'll leave this open to invite discussion from the community. Regards,  Spintendo  11:20, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Follow-up:

Having received no further input, this reviewer feels that the term "fraud" in all its iterations ("fraudster" etc.) should be removed from the article for the reasons stated above. Unfortunately, the ease of use of the term in the media (Reuters, etc.) has, fairly or not, created an entrenched sense that this label is the correct one to use, when it probably isn't, if one were strictly following the precepts of WP:BLPCRIME. I would make this change, however, I'm almost certain it would be reverted (making changes to an article is the best way of drawing out editors opinions, more effective than a call for comments such as the one I posted above). In the face of the opprobrium this change would likely create, this reviewer must begrudgingly decline. In the end, the COI edit request process should not be used to insert controversial changes like this one likely will prove to be, and the reality of the situation seems to suggest that the COI editor will require more force than a single reviewer can muster to affect this change. Regards,  Spintendo  16:33, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your review Spintendo, appreciate your time and your candid conclusion that the word “fraudster” should be removed and that under strict application of WP:BLPCRIME, the existing description is not appropriate.

However, I have not found any policy stating that an article subject may request only noncontroversial changes. Looks like you’re referring to an essay, (“Simple conflict of interest edit request”), reflecting an opinion and not Wikipedia policy. It describes what makes a request generally easy to process, nowhere does it establish a prohibition against requesting a disputed but policy-based correction.

The fact that a justified change *may* be reverted does not appear to be a reason enough to retain wording that you admittedly believe is inconsistent with WP:BLPCRIME.

I am also finding myself troubled by your apparent trepidation in suggesting that the request must nevertheless be declined because other editors may object or revert the change. This sentiment clearly appears to prioritize anticipated resistance from anonymous individuals with unknown motives over the merits of the request made by a real person facing real-life consequences (myself) and the obligations imposed by WP:BLP.

This is not merely an abstract wording dispute. I am the living subject of the article, and the language in the opening sentence has direct consequences for my reputation and livelihood. I have extensive documentation of examples of people repeating the pejorative labels from the lead while citing Wikipedia as their source.

WP:BLP requires biographies to be written conservatively and says editors should avoid contentious labels, loaded language and imprecise terms where clear factual language is available to be used instead. Any reasonable person would agree that labeling a living person “fraudster” is completely inappropriate when she was not convicted of an offense denominated as fraud, no?

Quoting directly from WP:BLP: "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research."

“Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.

The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material."

If you do not feel able to implement the change yourself, I ask that the request remain open for review by additional uninvolved editors or be referred to the appropriate BLP noticeboard rather than declined solely because the change may be contested.

Thanks! Anna Theannadelvey (talk) 08:14, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The instructions I'm referring to are not from an essay, they are from Template:RE/I which is a how-to guide for submitters and reviewers that explains concepts or processes used by the Wikipedia community in submitting and answering COI edit requests. It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, and it reflects varying levels of consensus. The first advice for reviewers is clear, in that it advises not to insert controversial edits without clear consensus, and advises to decline the request, which is what I did.

As for your arguments against the use of the term fraudster in the lead sentence, you're preaching to the choir — I agree wholeheartedly, and many of the points you make are also in the essay WP:FRAUDSTER. What I'm saying is that the request failed to garner any additional input beyond yourself and myself, when the issue clearly needs more input. According to the advice at Template:RE/I, this ought to be done without the use of the {{EditCOI}} template. Regards,  Spintendo  02:22, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Shame on me; I failed to follow this discussion continuing in the middle of the Talk Page, until a friend mentioned it off-wiki. Yes, news headlines, and even the body of reports, call our subject by unpleasant terms such as "Fraudster" and "Scammer" but Wikicustom is to be more conservative. "Scam" as far as I know is a less formal term with similar conventional meanings but without legal definition. "Fraud" is used in law for certain precisely defined bad actions, so it seems we, unlike news services, should restrict it to its legal usages, while for "Scam" and its derivatives we can just go with conventional or laic usage. This line of reasoning seems to lead to an okay for describing her as a "Scammer" which more or less matches the conventional, laic usage of "Fraudster". Or perhaps another word would be even more precise.

Incidentally, another friend asked whether she was coming to the Wikimedia NYC meetup a few hours ago, and speculated that she might make a good recruit as an editor. Real editor, of course was implied, not just a combination of WP:NOTHERE, WP:SPA, and WP:COI. "Well, yes" I replied, "She's clearly smart as hell". Yet another friend butted in with "Yes, but there's more to it than that". Anyway she has become a person of interest in the local Wikicommunity, and no, I don't mean "Person of Interest" as the term is used in police work. Just quiet chatting at cocktail hour and no, we don't do cocktails, either. Jim.henderson (talk) 09:32, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok thank you Jim! I will try my best to make it to the Wiki-picnic on the 9th.

And l appreciate the explanation, but per MOS:LABEL, contentious labels like fraudster and scammer don't belong in BLP. Both are judgments and not objective facts. There's no need to adjudicate the "conventional or laic usage" of anything, the lead can simply state what ! was actually convicted of- grand larceny and theft of services. Not fraud, not scam, not anything else. By the legal precision standard you've articulated, that resolves the question against both terms, not in favor of one.

Also I want to reiterate that my criminal conviction is not final and remains pending appeal. Despite having raised this repeatedly, this hasn't been corrected or even addressed.

All the best, Anna Theannadelvey (talk) 08:08, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, why is my birthplace in the first sentence, once again? MOS:CONTEXTBIO says birthplace DOESN'T go in the opening sentence unless it’s relevant to notability — and this page already discussed that and agreed it isnt. It's in the infobox and Early Life, which is where the guideline says it belongs. So I’m honestly not sure why it’s back in sentence one, is anyone driving this bus or? Theannadelvey (talk) 08:14, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Jim, thanks for engaging, but replacing fraudster with grifter doesn’t fix anything, it rotates one contentious label for another, and a less encyclopedic one.

“Grifter” is informal slang and is still piped to Scam, so it communicates exactly the same meaning as the word it replaced. If “fraudster” failed MOS:LABEL, changing it to a slang synonym cannot fix that problem. The short description also still says “fraudster,” meaning the article now applies two different pejorative labels within a line of each other.

There is no neutral label available here, because the whole category of label is the problem. MOS:LABEL doesn’t ask editors to find a different synonym, it asks them to state the specific facts and let readers judge.

So, concretely: “…is a woman convicted in 2019 of grand larceny, attempted grand larceny, and theft of services.” Acquitted on two counts, with conviction pending appeal, which the lead currently omits entirely despite reciting the convictions - that asymmetry is its own NPOV problem. This construction is precise, fully sourced, hides nothing, and is the same construction used in the leads of numerous comparable BLPs. Theannadelvey (talk) 04:41, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Fixed the short description. IMO this makes it less understandable, especially to non-Americans where larceny isn't a thing, but that's beside the point. lp0 on fire () 18:43, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

References

• Restore Fraudster - Glancing at this briefly, I'm a bit surprised we'd remove the word "fraudster". I understand that there may be some argument about legalese and what exactly the subject was convicted of. But what the subject received convictions for doesn't really matter on WP. What matters is verifiability and something is verifiable if it's confirmed by reliable sources. There are a plethora of reliable sources that would seem to support "fraudster" (e.g. LA Times "fraudster", "convicted con artist", "convicted scammer"; Sydney Morning Herald - "high-profile convicted fraudster"; Daily Mail "fraudster"; Vice Discusses a different fraudster as an "Anna Delvey-Style Fraudster"; New York Times "Convicted of fraud"; The Independent "found guilty of fraud";People "fraudster"; Sky News "fraudster"; BBC "convicted fraudster"). I understand this is a BLP and we need good sourcing for contentious labels, but if the sourcing for "fraudster" isn't good, I don't konw what there is good sourcing for. Furthermore, identifying the subject first as a "former socialite" seems wrong because she's not notable for being a "former socialite". Being a "former socialite" isn't a particularly notable thing. The subject is primarily notable for apparently fraudulent activities and should be introduced as such. NickCT (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Request to correct emigration date and age

The article currently states: "Born near Moscow, Delvey emigrated from Russia to Germany with her family at the age of 16 in 2007." This is factually incorrect, I permanently moved to Germany with my dad, not entire family, at the end of 2005, at the age of 14. My traveling and school records corroborate this timeline. Update the article accordingly. Theannadelvey (talk) 05:22, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Anna, it looks like whoever put that sentence in was basing it off of this article, which does say "Anna Sorokin was born in Russia in 1991, and moved to Germany in 2007, when she was 16, with her younger brother and her parents" and then goes on to give a short sketch of your childhood that it says is based on interviewing your family in Germany. Even if that article on The Cut is incorrect it will be hard to change that without another source that contradicts it. Is there anywhere editors could read some of these records that corroborate the timeline? -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 16:05, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@LWG Fwiw, here's another source, WP:ABOUTSELF but still: In Delvey’s case, she said, an error in an early piece in The Cut has proliferated after being used as a citation on her page. The article said she moved to Germany at age 16; she was actually 14, she told Straight Arrow. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:23, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Partly done I removed the information about your mother since the sources citing in the article didn't say anything about your mother's occupation. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 16:21, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

LWG you claim to strive to maintain a policy of neutrality on controversial issues and to believe in civility and assuming good faith, but your edits on my profile from July 9th 2026 show otherwise. I don't agree with the rationale given that it is

"not completely clear" whether sources discuss my paintings or exhibitions. That is something that should be resolved by examining the sources themselves more closely or looking for better ones, not by deleting the material without discussion.

There are so many articles documenting my work as an artist, including coverage of exhibitions and reporting on hundreds of thousands of dollars in art sales, and removing any mention of that work from the first paragraph gives readers an incomplete picture of my post-2017 career. The lead again continues to emphasize redundant insulting pejoratives "con artist" and "fraudster," both of which are meant to publicly humiliate and degrade me, despite the related events already being covered in extensive detail later in the article. Per Wikipedia's neutrality policy, the lead should summarize the full scope of the subject's notability rather than focus almost exclusively on criminal conduct, which currently is the case.

Happy to provide a list of sources supporting the above, let me know how. Theannadelvey (talk) 04:32, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Theannadelvey, I apologize for not replying, I didn't see this post from you. If you link my user page when replying like [[User:LWG|LWG]] (as Gråbergs Gråa Sång did above) then I will get a notification that you have replied to me. I don't have anything against you - I had never even heard of you until this article came up on a noticeboard. I don't envy your situation (personally I hope I never become famous enough to have a Wikipedia article about myself). I also don't think people should be defined by the worst thing they have ever done, but unfortunately that's what a lot of the news media cares to write about, and on Wikipedia we try to only follow what the sources say.

How you can help:

1. Post more links here to articles documenting your work as an artist. We can't include information from a source if we don't know the source exists.
2. Publish correct information about yourself. It sounds like you have already started doing this. For example, the article currently states that you moved to Germany in 2007, which is what news articles have said about you, but you have told us that you actually moved there in 2005. You mentioned that travel/school records would corroborate that. If you publish those records somewhere not on Wikipedia, they could potentially be used as a source here to correct that information.
3. Keep us informed of any additional coverage about you. The unfortunate fact of being famous for something negative is that most of the people who really pay attention to your story are probably interested in the negative side of it. For someone like me, whose areas of interest are mostly mathematics and linguistics, I'm never going to see a news story about you unless someone tells me about it here.

If you have any other questions about the Wikipedia process, feel free to reach out to me on my talk page. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 17:59, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi LWG, thank you for your reply and your time!

A simple google search returns dozens of results about my work as an artist, here are a few of them:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/25/style/anna-sorokin-art.html

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/anna-delvey-solo-show-2093291

https://www.highsnobiety.com/p/anna-delvey-art-show-alleged/

https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2022/03/17/anna-sorokin-free-anna-delvey-pop-up-exhibition-new-york

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/anna-delvey-out-of-jail-but-still-under-house-arrest-pulled-in-more-than-300000-from-her-art-this-year-2235630

https://nypost.com/2022/12/21/anna-delvey-sold-340k-of-her-artwork-thats-mostly-of-herself/

https://untitled-magazine.com/no-regrets-exclusive-interview-with-anna-sorokin-aka-anna-delvey-on-prison-reform-and-creating-art-behind-bars/

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/arts-and-culture/a38962970/where-is-anna-delvey-today/

https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/anna-delvey-art-show-1234622617/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/goodbye-anna-delvey-high-society-scammer-hello-anna-sorokin-artist/

https://variety.com/2022/scene/news/anna-delvey-art-show-nyc-1235272697/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2022/03/23/anna-delvey-sorokins-prison-art-will-tell-her-side-of-the-story-in-a-solo-gallery-show/

https://www.nylon.com/life/anna-delvey-nyc-art-show-allegedly-review

https://www.papermag.com/anna-delvey-art-show-2657025623.html

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/anna-delvey-secret-miami-party-zoom-2222142

https://theknockturnal.com/untitled-space-hosts-10th-anniversary-celebration/

https://untitled-space.art/blogs/news/uprise-2025-x-art4equality-benefit-auction

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/anna-delvey-art-show-nyc-b2083765.html The Independent — coverage of the ‘‘Allegedly’’ solo exhibition and its 20 works

https://www.artsy.net/artist/anna-delvey

However, my main concern remains the use of pejorative labels in the lead when a clear and precise legal description is available instead. I have raised this repeatedly, but instead of resolving the issue, one insult has simply been replaced with an even worse one. I would still appreciate a substantive response, or even better - a satisfactory resolution - to my point about why a subjective characterization is being used at all when the relevant convictions can be stated accurately and neutrally?

Thank you,

Anna Theannadelvey (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

@Theannadelvey I think the article may have been edited since your earlier complaint - which specific terms in the lead are you concerned about? -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 19:19, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi User:LWGILWG - you're right, the article has indeed been changed since my last comment - thanks everyone for staying on top of it, I hope it won't get reverted by the next person.

One thing still left is "fraudster" in the article description, if that could be changed to a neutral factual label similar to the lead, I'd really appreciate it. Theannadelvey (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@LWG you're right, the article has indeed been changed since my last comment - thanks everyone for staying on top of it, I hope it won't get reverted by the next person.

One thing still left is "fraudster" in the article description, if that could be changed to a neutral factual label similar to the lead, I'd really appreciate it. Theannadelvey (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

For transparency...

The subject of this article (@Theannadelvey) wrote about the recent talk page interactions in her Substack blog, YOUR REQUEST HAS BEEN DENIED.

Also, to reassure Anna: Don't worry, you're not going to get blocked just for making edit requests! I'll admit that Wikipedia isn't always the most intuitive place to edit on, especially for editors dealing with their own biography. In fact, some of your requests were indeed relevant (e.g. the specific application of "fraudster" here). Has anyone linked you to Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide yet? Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 01:38, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Heh. I was about to link to the same "Delvey Report". Yes, she raises some interesting points including the one about anonymity. Perhaps she would like to attend one of our periodic meetings, see Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC including the one on July 29 in 54th Street, Midtown Manhattan. For one thing, we are far less anonymous there. For another, we might snap a few pictures that would satisfy her better, even if though I don't think we can match the existing top portrait for quality. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I might Theannadelvey (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. In fact, all of my requests were relevant, not just some Theannadelvey (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Too bad you couldn't get to the meeting last week. We were pretty busy anyway discussing the big Paris convention. Or at least I was busy complaining about it, gently, quietly. There will be another much smaller, more private meeting the following Tuesday evening, 11 August, 5:30 at the Brooklyn Heights Public Library, Orange Room. Fewer editors, and none of the more influential ones. You can expect a cordial welcome, but satisfaction on the points you make is less likely. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Name of boyfriend

At Anna_Delvey#Personal_life. My knee-jerk reaction is that this can be excluded per WP:BLPNAME "Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value.", opinions, editors? And why the redlink? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

It's unclear why that is important enough to be included. I will remove it. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 18:39, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Rachel DeLoache Williams as source

I just reverted a WP:TA edit, see our ES:s . Source, written 2018 by Rachel DeLoache Williams, used quite a bit in the WP-article:

According to the WP-article, "In 2017, the NYPD arrested Delvey in a sting operation with the help of her former friend, Rachel DeLoache Williams, who accused Delvey of defrauding her of US$62,000." This indicates to me that Williams is not exactly independent in the Delvey context. So, editors, should we use her without in-text attribution, "According to Williams" etc, in the article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:06, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

IMHO, even "former friend" would mean that attribution should be used, so in this case definitely don't go without attribution. Iluzalsipal (talk) 07:07, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Another name in caption

One of the images is captioned "Delway". It might be a typo? But I'm not sure if there is another alias here. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Suggestion: newer infobox photo

Hello — I'd like to suggest replacing the current infobox photo with a newer, more current one: File:Anna Delvey 2026.jpg (suggested caption: "Delvey in 2026"). It's a photograph of Anna Delvey from September 13, 2026, by Mark Minton, released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 license; his consent email has been sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org for VRT verification. Thank you. QuietHarbor2026 (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

IMO the current one is better better as WP:LEADIMAGE, but this is subjective. Nothing prevents adding it to the article, Fashion section perhaps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2026 (UTC)