Talk:Amanda Roth Block

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (The copyright information will be submitted later today via the copyright holder. He will be submitting the OTRS for both pictures and information provided here. Slagard ) --Eusophryne (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to being a copyright violation, the article was also blatantly promotional in nature and has been deleted as such. Rule of thumb - if you are using the same marketing and promotional material on Wikipedia as is used to promote the artist on their own website then the article is overly-promotional. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

False,

Using a "history of an artist" as background for them is clearly non-promotional. There are no ads or discussion about selling artwork so ever. By using a history of an artist as seen on a dedication page for the artist, it only reflects an interest to explain the background of the artist overall. Slagard (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NPOV - it is important as the tone of this article is decidedly not neutral. A random selection of NPOV policy-violating and inappropriate prose includes:
  • "Her superb color sense has always been Amanda’s trademark"
  • "Her female subjects, not matter how abstract their portrayal, always seem to be real people; and we, the viewer, feel forced to question: who are they, and why do they speak so clearly to us" (dear Lord)
  • "Amanda always knew she was an artist, but life kept getting in her way"
  • "where she was thought to be a gifted and talented instructor"
  • "Traditionally abstract expressionist and very much in the main stream of painting at the time, these large canvasses today have the effect of anchoring the viewer firmly in the times"
  • "A lithographer of some renown...the artist felt very comfortable in the complex and demanding medium of print-making"
I am not implying that Block is not worthy of a Wikipedia article, but this is not an encyclopedia article, it is a puff piece. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Amanda Roth Block. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]