Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manetas

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. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manetas

Not too sure about this one. I don't know if this one should be here since I was trying to move it to the artists full name, but the page is locked due to old deletions [1]. He is mentioned in several other articles, but as with the other Afd [2], there don't seem to be any sources around to verify. Just wanted to bring it here and see what others had to say. A^RendedWinter 22:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, it's close, but I think delete. This is art? The pollack page was kinda neat, but overall this isn't notable. humblefool® 22:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, the Pollock one is awesome! Not sure about the Warhol one, though. The chans and YTMD come up with better stuff by the hour. Ichormosquito 05:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Horrid article reeking of copyvio/promotion/in-universe perspective. But problematically I think Manetas is notable, because he has exhibited at the Whitney Biennial, the premier art exhibition in the US, and has been the subject of feature articles in Salon and WIRED and the NYT. (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neen and the Need (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) deletion log.) In short, would pass WP:BIO in a properly written article (and I think that should be Milton Manetas rather than Neen). --Dhartung | Talk 22:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify that as the sources indicate he was not actually a juried competitor, but he did receive coverage in reliable sources for the activity. "Neen" is essentially self-promotional, and "movement" is not the word I would use to describe it; it's more like his performance art. --Dhartung | Talk 00:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NYT coverage of prank artnet includes it in a list of Biennial "spinoffs" Whitney curator expounds on significance FOX, more recently In short Manetas is a notable digital artist. I'm undecided whether the article under consideration is, shall we say, an instance of his art which always comes with a soupçon of self-promotion. --Dhartung | Talk 01:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Almost exactly everything I was going to say. A google search of his name (as one word) and Neen produces 10000+ hits. I would argue that we're looking at the creator of a major art movement. But, do let's not delete on the basis of whether or not you like the man's artwork. Needs rewriting.--Sethacus 22:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability well demonstrated. But does need someone to make it an article. Marbruk 22:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Humblefool and due to lack of citations from WP:RS on the page which are required to establish notability. Stifle (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If kept, move to Miltos Manetas, his full name. Stifle (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename, rewrite and wikify. Seems notable enough, plenty of press coverage, works bought by Charles Saatchi. However, the article as it stands has much scope for improvement of the breadth of its coverage and it obviously needs wikification.--Vox puppet (talk • contribs) 06:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename, rewrite and wikify per above. Contemporary art is an important subject, but I can't imagine it would always appeal to Wikipedia's populist sensibilities. We need to be careful not to dismiss this guy too quickly. The sources presented at this discussion are enough to support an article. Ichormosquito 05:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:34, 13 October 2007 (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.