Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alberto Frigo

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 keep. Consensus is that the subject is too known for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE to apply here. Since this policy only uses the word "may" anyway, there is no prejudice to do so. Plus, removing the AfD tag indicates that the nominator maybe wished to withdraw his nomination anyway. So Why 14:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Frigo

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

This article is about me. I do not wish to appear public on Wikipedia, it conflicts with my own image and the information I wish to provide through my own website Alberto.frigo (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe we can accomodate this per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A highly notable artist who is covered in literally dozens of sources. Examples: 1. Yahoo news, 2. The Irish Times, 3. Swedish National Radio, 4. a book pub by Routledge called "Installation Art and the Practices of Archivalism", 5. "Code/space: Software and Everyday Life", by MIT press, and 6. a Profile by Bruce Sterling in Wired. He received the Swedish Prix Mobius award and was part of a significant exhibition at the Hasselblad Foundation. I also found examples of him being mentioned in fields outside of art (included in "Environment and Planning: Planning & design, Volume 34, Issues 1-3", so his art research is transdisciplinary, which is very rare. Meets WP:GNG very easily. The article itself is well sourced, the subject is well-known per the sources, so WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE does not apply here. Article subject's work is already published across diverse media, so deleting it per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE would be a case of "image" management rather than policy. 104.163.140.193 (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the subject wants the article deleted, why did he remove the AfD tag? Mduvekot (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question but not relevant to the discussion.104.163.140.193 (talk) 08:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It could be interpreted as an an attempt to revoke the request. Perhaps we could ask the subject? Mduvekot (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be faster to ask an admin to close this as keep, since it does not meet WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE-- the sole delete rationale.104.163.140.193 (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is for "relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete". Alberto Frigo is notable and not unknown, so it has to stay. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- He's notable but relatively unknown. I tend to err on the side of delete in cases like this -- I am in the minority when I do so. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He had a profile in Wired magazine and many newspaper articles... can you really say he is relatively unknown?104.163.140.193 (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was certainly good pick up of the Chris Parsons Yahoo news piece -- and there was something in Wired back in 2006. I guess it comes down to how you'd interpret "relatively." I'd probably be arguing keep if it was up for deletion. I do tend to err on the side of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE that may come close to WP:IAR, if someone isn't what I would regard as a prominently notable person. Which I'd argue this one-handed lifeblogger isn't. But I get that I am going to be on the losing side in this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well said! You are correct about being on the losing side-- once notable, always notable.104.163.140.193 (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an article that (as far as I know) is unobjectionable about somebody who I infer is sufficiently notable (as the term is understood hereabouts). ¶ Above, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is cited. Here's what this says: Where the subject of a BLP has requested deletion, the deletion policy says: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." In addition, it says: "Poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed." ¶ Let's assume for now that User:Alberto.frigo is indeed Alberto Frigo and thus is "the subject", so that this might apply. Obvious problem: "relatively unknown" is meaningless, as what it's relative to goes undefined. What is clear is that Frigo is neither unknown nor non-public. Though once-public people may change their views and choose to retire from the world, it's not at all obvious that Wikipedia should then remove articles about them; anyway, as recently as 2015 Frigo cooperated with (mass?) media coverage of what he was/is doing: example in Metro, example in The Journal, example in Fast co. Therefore WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE doesn't seem to apply. If Frigo objects not to the existence of an article but instead to ingredients, bias, tone, etc of this article, then he should go to BLP/Help. -- Hoary (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2017 (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.