Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Greene

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 delete. ‑Scottywong | [babble] || 04:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Greene[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article seems to be about a none notable artist. Since all the sources in it are primary or dead links, and I was unable to find multiple in-depth sources about him in a WP:BEFORE. So, this fails both WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Adamant1 (talk) 05:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:ARTIST, work(s) not "been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.". Coolabahapple (talk) 08:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coolabahapple, he has won significant critical attention, for example, his inclusion in the Smithsonian Institution exhibit I described below. See "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources not on the state of sourcing in an article"; WP:ARTN. You can call me "Al" Al Leluia81 (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A non-notable, commercial illustrator; does not meet WP:ARTIST criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia. No collections in notable museums, no indepth critical SIGCOV. Netherzone (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone, Greene is a notable fine artist, not a non-notable commercial artist. According to this source, "A Higher Power", in the article, in 1990, Harry Anderson, (note: Anderson is in the Illustrator's Hall of Fame), recommended commissions he was offered, to be offered to Nathan Greene instead.

"A freelance illustrator at the time, Greene jumped at the chance to create work of a more permanent nature". The first painting he completed, Chief of the Medical Staff, is one of his signature canvases. In a dramatic, tightly cropped composition that evokes the luminescent palette of Maxfield Parrish, Christ steadies a surgeon’s hand as he makes his initial incision."

That painting, Chief of the Medical Staff is fine art, not commercial art. He has been doing fine art ever since.

That article (an independent secondary source, from Minneapolis, in the article) that was posted online in 2005 also said, "Today, a Greene original goes for $25,000 to $50,000, and there’s a two-year waiting list to get one". See sixth paragraph.. That is the equivalent of ~$33,271 to ~$66,543 in 2020. You can call me "Al". Al Leluia81 (talk) 01:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but I'll miss it. Greene's idea seems to be to have Jesus photobombing contemporary day-to-day events like a business meeting [1] or assisting in surgery (note: without PPE). One of the (few) somewhat more in-depth sources, [2] asks the question: "Greene’s work has obvious populist appeal, but is it truly important art? Or just evangelical kitsch, a technically superior version of those cheap plastic figurines of the Son of God playing football with schoolkids?" and favorably compares Greene's the Introduction, https://www.nathangreene.com/fullsize/40/72 with Michelangelo's Fall and Expulsion from Garden of Eden https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Michelangelo,_Fall_and_Expulsion_from_Garden_of_Eden_00.jpg Greene has more in common with Harry Anderson (artist). The problem with Greene (and several other Seventh-day Adventist artists) is that coverage only seems to exists in LDS-affiliated sources that care more about their religiosity than the quality of the work. To answer Beato's question: Yes, it's evangelical kitsch. We should have articles about evangelical kitsch painters, but we do need significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, and evidence of acquisitions by major collecting art institutions and that's missing. Vexations (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations, I found your comment that Greene's idea seems to be to have Jesus photobombing contemporary day-to-day events like a business meeting [1] or assisting in surgery (note: without PPE). funny, for I have never looked at it that way. That God is omnipresent, and Jesus is God, so Jesus is already in the scene, would be a Christian way to see it. Greene's art with Jesus in medical situations takes what Christians view as reality and he creates a concrete image of it, that Jesus is everywhere, including the operating room, rather than that He would jump into the picture for a photo opportunity. (I also would question whether Jesus would need PPE, as the Eternal Great Physician; a painting with Jesus needed to wear a mask to stay "safe", or to obey a "stay at home" quarantine order would be really strange. I can't imagine why Jesus would ever need hand sanitizer, either.) I found your comments and perspective helpful, because I have never seen the possible humor in those images from an outsider's point of view.

The same article noted that Jesus is found in other kinds of pop culture but is "less established" in contemporary art, and that curators make room for "dung-smeared Madonnas and crucifixes in urine" but "genuine, unironic reverence is not found in Manhattan or Artforum." Then, on the same business painting you mention, it reports an exception, that one Sunday a painting of Greene's was the on cover of New York Times Magazine in a photo of an office showing a desk "and—most prominently—a spectacular painting hanging on the plain white wall." The author continued:

Even reprinted in godless fish wrap, The Senior Partner is instantly memorable. Remarkably, the Times didn’t even bother to mention the artist’s name. It was an oversight that might have driven a lesser man to despair, but Nathan Greene, the artist who painted The Senior Partner, doesn’t seem particularly interested in personal glory.

After his question on whether it is evangelic kitsch, the author's responded to that question, saying:

And even at its most sentimental, his work is never mere décor: While millions of Americans profess to have a close personal relationship with Jesus now, few artists working in any medium have documented this phenomenon as tellingly as Greene has."

Second, you also commented that we do need significant coverage in independent, reliable sources and I agree. The issue is largely an absence of research, especially research not focused on SDA.

A search for "Nathan Greene" in Google will yield mainly Nathanael Greene, the American historical figure, and the many other Nathan Greene's and Greens. It took several hours for me to find Nathan Greene's NASA work verified and his inclusion in the Smithsonian Institution's Air and Space Museum.

Both the article you referenced above, and the "The Christian Rockwell" article I recovered from the History are substantial, independent and secondary. This is still at the stub level.

There are many avenues to explore. I did a fast search today and found other videos, which are possible source of material. See WP:PUBLISH. One is by the Christian Ophthalmology Society. It is on Greene's commission Be Thou My Vision. It can be expected that much of the material to be found on Greene's Christian subject matter will be in Christian source material, just as secular art is mainly covered in secular works; that does not make it automatically non-independent.

From what I have seen so far, this article can be massively improved. A thorough search on this subject will take weeks, or even longer. I am willing to do it. I am busy with other things I will complete first, but will work on research and will make improvements by the end of the year.

While I agree that Seventh Day Adventist (non-independent) sources are relatively easy to find on a Google search's first page, better (independent) sources for this encyclopedia will more likely be found on page 23, or only after hours of searching. That no one has found them does not mean they do not exist.

See "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources not on the state of sourcing in an article".

WP:ARTN says: "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability."

I believe the article as it was when this AfD was posted is a good example of very poor writing and referencing, on a notable subject. Its focus on Seventh Day Adventism makes it appear that this artist's claim to fame is a single art show at an Adventist College, and that occasionally Adventists add one of his paintings to the wall of an Adventist building, and throw a party. I see that.

I also see that no attempt appears to have been made to improve or save the article yet. Before nominating: checks and alternatives. You can call me "Al" Al Leluia81 (talk) 01:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:ARTIST:

9. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

10. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.

11. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

12. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. I will be addressing these factors:

There was an erroneous deletion of a secondary source when an editor disagreed with one of its statements that I found in the article's history. The URL is dead, but I found it in the Wayback Machine. This is a secondary source that is independent of the Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) group.

I remind you that articles on Christian subjects are generally covered by Christian sources, just as secular topics are covered by secular press, and this being a Baptist publication is not reason for exclusion. It refers to Greene as a "Christian Rockwell", "a popular painter", and it says "His big break came when fellow artist Harry Anderson recommended him for some work", noting Anderson "was one of the nation’s top illustrators". Anderson is in the Illustrator's Hall of Fame; scroll down to 1994.

The article notes Greene's "Chief of the Medical Staff" painting is given out in some hospitals and the image is "displayed in physicians’ offices and medical facilities across the country". This is one piece of evidence that Greene meets "9. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors."

I am linking examples below to art as example, much of it on galleries online, not because I expect anyone to buy this kind of art, but to demonstrate that I am not expecting you to take my word for anything. (I expect some readers here might be more inclined to buy a canister of freeze-dried cockroaches rather than an image of Jesus.)

As a Christian with a longstanding interest in modern Jesus art, I will informally say that one characteristic of Nathan Greene's work is its affordability. There are many Christian-related artists, for example this site devoted to Christian art; scroll down to the list of >200 artists. This is the Nathan Greene page.

In general, most have few smaller works. Even a card from Mormon artist Greg Olsen; click "stationery" is almost $6. This is standard, and most artists have no images much below that price. Some have nothing in that price range. Finding prints for $40 and up is not hard; finding inexpensive images is not easy.

Greene, however, offers many works as 5 x 7 postcards, suitable for framing for $1 each, & drops the price lower as more are purchased. He calls this a "postcard collection", see the column on the left. This makes it affordable for women with "card ministries" to buy his images in quantity & add them to cards. (In every church I have been in there are ladies who send cards to a list of people who many be lonely, widowed, having birthdays, surgeries, etc. They may send out 10 to 20 cards a month and cannot afford to pay $7 a card.)

If someone will be undergoing surgery, they may be given a Nathan Greene "Chief of the Medical Staff" image. If the doctor doesn't know what is wrong with them yet, they may receive "The Difficult Case". I know of no other Christian artists with medical images like this that are hung on the walls of hospitals, comforting people, and although I have looked, over the years, (I enjoy modern Jesus art), I do not know of any other contemporary Jesus-related artist who is close to being this affordable.

This means his work is out there, on walls, and refrigerator doors and circulating to friends about to undergo medical procedures, on a daily basis, throughout the year. It is not only sold as 5 x 7 postcards, he also has his art collection on USB drive. This may be used by pastors to illustrate sermons, and in other ways. Greene's art is not just hanging in museums, it is part of people's everyday lives. Where it comes to price, Nathan Greene is an innovator.

Although you may not have heard of him, Nathan Greene is one of the top contemporary artists of images of Jesus. The deleted article (2008) in the article history also states that Greene's "The Senior Partner" image of Jesus with a businessman "appeared last year on the cover of the New York Times Sunday magazine." Though it would be good to have corroboration, my point is also that this article, a secondary source, should not have been deleted.

I have not searched the entire history. There may have been other losses to this article. A history search is supposed to be done before an AfD is posted. See Before nominating under "B. Carry out these checks": "3. Review the article's history to check for potential vandalism or poor editing."

Another attribute of Greene is that most artists depict Christ with only white sheep (Psalm 23). Some people feel like they are misfits, or "black sheep." Though small, Greene's Black Sheep Collection, although I am no expert, may be the largest group of images of Jesus with black sheep in modern Christian art.

It is worth remembering that whether anyone views Greene's Jesus-related paintings as "kitsch" or not, that is irrelevant to notability. Also note that those works are only some of what he has done. There is also his other work, on other subjects.

After clicking that link, note the baseball watercolor, second row, on the right. Greene says the president of the American Academy of Art published that image, and that it was hung on the wall of the American Academy of Art for 25 years "until I asked if I could have it back, which they very kindly agreed to do."

Recalling that notability is an attribute of a subject, look at that painting. If you know of a better painting of baseball anywhere, I would like to see it. Take another look as well at the Gouache Wash of Princess Anne. With all due respect, it does not appear anyone recommending "Delete" has looked at his art or knows this artist well enough to know he has done topics other than Jesus.

Greene's work also includes his Western watercolors. Note the detail in the historical paintings, especially Abraham Lincoln. His also has painted somewhat surrealistic apocalyptic art.

Now consider NASA. As the Greene article mentions, he has done work for NASA. As the artist says, NASA commissioned him. This is some of his Space Shuttle art. Note the detail in these images.

NASA commissions should be a cue that this artist is notable. This page says this painting of Greene's is part of a traveling exhibit of the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum for their “NASA Art, 50 Years of Exploration” display, and notes there is a "companion book by the same title, published by: Abrams".

See also Irving Arts Center; "NASA|ART: 50 Years of Exploration": NASA|ART Educational Resources.

Nathan Greene's bio is on page 5.11 of the Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition artist's page in the document above.

Information about the NASA Art Program is on page 5.2. It says the NASA archive has over 800 works of art, and the Smithsonian's Air and Space Museum has over 2,000. If you note the artists whose works were chosen, inclusion in an exhibit of this magnitude signifies that Nathan Greene's astronomical art in the opinion of possibly both NASA and the Smithsonian Institution rated favorably in comparison with world-class artists.

Regarding notability, for those interested in contemporary Christian art, Nathan Greene is among the top artists of his day. He is called a "Christian Rockwell" because some of his paintings are similar to Rockwell. He received commission referrals from Harry Anderson, and all of that should satisfy that he "is regarded as an important figure" (9).

As it states in his biography in the Smithsonian exhibit, Nathan Greene "is known for his Christian art in which he places Christ in contemporary settings such as the operating room. Greene's unique style combines contemporary painting with a background in classical art in a way that yields very realistic human, animal, and landscape subjects."

This helps to satisfy "10. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." Unlike other modern Christian artists, such as Stephen Sawyer's paintings of Jesus in a boxing ring, or with a drug addict, Greene places Jesus, to show the all-present (omnipresent) quality of God present as Spirit in people's daily lives, centered within professions, especially the medical professions.

Danny Hahlbohm places an angel (not Jesus) with many images of police, firefighters and the military, and Jesus with President Trump; scroll to "You Are Not Alone Mr. President". He has no medical images. A patient likely won't see a Sawyer or Hahlbohm work, or any other Christian artist going into surgery, but patients may see one of Greene's detailed medical images there, or at their dentist.

The Christian Medical & Dental Associations sell Greene's art like "In Good Hands", for dentistry, and also sell "Physician's Prayer" and "Difficult Case"; about 2/3 of the way down the page. Greene is the only artist there, and the only one with a Medical Collection.

To sum, Greene has "11. … created … a significant or well-known work". He is very well known among those who like this kind of art. He also has "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." More would be better, but he has all he needs to satisfy notability. As an artist who has not sought publicity, he is a more challenging subject to research than a Justin Bieber, but notability is notability regardless of the state of development of an article. This is labeled a stub at its base.

He has won "significant critical attention" (12 c), to satisfy the final condition of WP:ARTIST. In addition, having any work included in a prestigious Smithsonian Institution traveling exhibit and book could be "substantial" (e.g., if he is the main or only space shuttle artist). He also had one painting in the American Academy of Art for 25 years, the Detroit Tiger baseball watercolor.

His work "NASA Shuttle Endeavour STS-49, Post Landing Convoy Operations, Dryden Flight Research Center, May, 1992 Oil on canvas 45″ x 60″" was selected for that "display at the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum in the 'NASA Art, 50 Years of Exploration'" exhibit (quote is from Nathan Greene's NASA art album).

Scroll down to find "NASA Gamma Ray Observatory being hoisted into a test chamber prior to launch on Space Shuttle Atlantis STS-37 April 5, 1991," a second painting in the same NASA celebration Smithsonian Air & Space Museum traveling exhibit.

NASA was founded in 1958. Greene's work that was commissioned in the early 1990's was still being used by them in 2008, over 15 years later for the NASA 50th Anniversary. See Sustained; the idea that a notable topic retains notability over time, like Greene's NASA work.

The final test is that "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums" is met, based on (c) alone.

As for the comments by those asking to "Delete"; however the article "seems", its notability is not based on current appearance. Also, its sources are not all either primary or dead. See Primary, Secondary & Tertiary Sources. The book is secondary. The Minnesota/Twin Cities article is also secondary. I have not looked at all the others thoroughly, but both deadlinks are in the Wayback Machine.

The Versacare source has an image here. The Ramussen exhibit has a capture here.

With a brief look at the article history I found that delete of a secondary source, in the Wayback Machine, as I noted. There may be other material that can be retrieved. This may always be a brief article; there is no way to tell, because complete, methodical research has never yet been done.

The second "Delete" is opinion without evidence. The third claims Greene is a "non-notable, commercial illustrator". That is opinion without evidence again here. Greene has been both a commercial and fine artist, and is today known more for his fine art. Also, there is no ban on commercial artists having articles on Wikipedia.

While I appreciate the more considered response Vexations made, I think the issue is not so much that though sources may only "seem" to be only in SDA (differs from LDS) publications, and while we may differ on the quality of his work, (I think Greene is an outstanding artist), what is out there is not easy to find. The little that is here has been overtaken by an what I consider an SDA desire to have this be an article about themselves.

Notice the photo that dominates this small article, of Ellen G. White and her husband James with the words "Part of a series on Seventh-day Adventist Church". (Yes, the "The" is missing.)

The Adventist's differ greatly on some areas of doctrine with every mainstream Christian denomination. Here is a comparison of beliefs.

Many do not consider them "Christian". Some say they are a "cult", or apocalyptic cult. Others consider them a fringe group. Not unlike the Mormons founding the Mormon Tabernacle Choir to serve as an ambassador, I believe the Adventists also use members, including those in the arts, to improve how they are perceived.

I have glanced through some areas and saw one place where Greene is listed, I will guess by someone affiliated with SDA, as an "Adventist artist." The valuable article I found in the history has a quote by Greene saying his art is "nondenominational." His website and Gallery do not mention he is SDA.

I have been aware of this artist for years and I did not know he was SDA until I came online to do a few random edits, landed on a family of artists who do Christian art, checked the Christian Artists category, and saw Nathan Greene was not there. I searched for Nathan Greene, found he does have an article, and was surprised to see it actually had an AfD on it, then saw what is there: a disorganized bunch of sentences with a strange focus on what paintings have been hung in various Adventist buildings. With no picture of the artist and an overshadowing picture of Ellen G. White.

The article on Nathan Greene must be on Nathan Greene; it is a BLP. It is not "on" Seventh Day Adventism. The POV editing to skew this topic into making Greene an advertisement, is why it reads like one. It needs many things but the main thing is it needs to be a BLP, that means disallowing this claim that the article is "on" SDA.

Adventist materials can be used, like any denomination, but they must be used the right way and in proper proportion to the rest of the article, as well as to get leads.

Whenever you see an emblem in a biography "stamping" someone with ownership, it is potential clue to notability: It could well mean, as I believe it does here, that there is a desire to "hitch a wagon to a star" or bask in the reflected light of someone's positive reputation, because there is a star there; and something to be gained.

The Seventh Day Adventists should have been notified about this AfD, and also the Christians.

There was a 2009 AfD; result was "Keep." Note comments here.

May God bless you, and thank you for your time. Al Leluia81 (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding permanent link for Nathan Greene page.Al Leluia81 (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Al Leluia81, that's a lot to digest. Let me address one of your claims: that Greene meets WP:NARTIST#2 (The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique)

Where it comes to price, Nathan Greene is an innovator He is not. Even Harry Anderson, Greene's mentor produced postcards. See for example [3]. Cheap prints have been available for centuries. I'm somewhat familiar with what the French call "imagerie poplulaire", exemplified by the Épinal print. When I visited the museum in Epinal, I was shown 19th-century prints that, according to the museum guide, were so cheap that farmers would put up images of saints in their stables to bless their cows. Cheap religious prints are not an innovation by Greene and there are no sources that corroborate that claim. Vexations (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations, I did not mean to imply no one in the history of art has made it affordable. In the current market, it is part of what makes his work widespread. His greater innovation is his niche of medical art involving Jesus and style. There is no one else like that. Al Leluia81 (talk) 02:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't agree with most of what was said by Al Leluia81, I do agree that the article was unfairly hijacked by Seventh-Day Adventists in what seems to be a crappy attempt to connect them to "notable" people. Even if they only had a slight connection to the church. List_of_Seventh-day_Adventists is full of people who have absolutely zero connection to Seventh-Day Adventism, but still have their "Part of a series on Seventh-day Adventist Church" banner plastered in their article. Often at the cost of their own picture and biographical details. Which is really a shame and rather scammy of whoever canvased their banner everywhere in places that it doesn't belong. It seems like they do the same thing with sourcing also. It seems like they write a bunch of extremely subpar "articles" about people just so they have their name attached to the person in some fashion. Even if the person has nothing to do with the church. Then they ref bomb their "articles" all over Wikipedia to generate clicks to their websites and build faux street cred. A good portion of the articles in List_of_Seventh-day_Adventists seem to have been created by people connected to the church. While I agree there is usually no harm in say a Christian writing about Christianity because they have an interest in the topic (or us citing them in an article), that's not what is going on with the Seventh-day Adventists. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, I don't agree with this AfD or how it was done; Greene's astronomical work with NASA and the Smithsonian alone makes him notable. But you have stated well a big problem of - "hijacking" - of articles to push a promotional agenda. These POV edits create bad articles, and these "Part of a series on Seventh Day Adventist" banners are, and I say this understanding that there are very sincere SDA people out there, but it seems to me a form of parasitism, attaching themselves to SDA members and overtaking them as a subject. Your comment about using Wikipedia to bring people to their sites hits the target. No BLP is "on" the religion. I had clicked that list of Adventists before to see if they all have banners. No one should be using banners as marketing tools to "own" biographies. This "Nathan Greene" article has been warped into a "The Seventh Day Adventism of Nathan Greene" article: Unacceptable. It would be nice if there would be a way to remove every SDA banner on every biography across the board simultaneously. You can call me Al. Al Leluia81 (talk) 02:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, first, from what I can see it would appear that a "reasonable search" was not done as part of an attempt to improve or save the article, or other steps taken via the addition of proper tags, adding a note to the Talk page, finding material by searching the History, and other steps that are part of Before nominating: checks and alternatives.

See Alternatives to deletion: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page".

Second, you have described a very big problem with these "Part of a series on Seventh-day Adventist Church" portals being used in mischievous ways. You have said not just this article but others have been negatively impacted, with that banner misused. What I hear is you saying is that the portal has created an incentive to create non-notable spam, and they are being placed, at other articles' expense, to channel readers toward SDA information.

If what you are saying is true, that many in the list of Adventists are not Adventists, then that might be defamatory. Saying a vegetarian was seen eating meat can be defamatory, because it may decrease their reputation among their peers. Likewise with calling an Christian an atheist, or the reverse. As an online encyclopedia, we cannot have people's biographies marked with images of Ellen and James White, if they are not Adventists, and even if they are, it could be invasion of privacy. Greene is an Adventist, but he has not noted that fact on his general site or online gallery. I see you removed it and the article seems relieved to no longer have Ellen and James White overshadowing and diverting attention from Nathan Greene. It is troubling that there are other articles where this is a problem.

With the possible exceptions of major leaders of this religious group, as I see it, the "Part of a series on Seventh-day Adventist Church" should not be permitted on BLPs, as they are contentious and possible defamation. Besides not being true. No denomination or other group should be "branding" articles with their insignia in this way. Creating better guidelines for such portal banners could decrease the incentive for new spam creation, as well as having fewer Wikipedia articles "hi-jacked" and made into advertisements by any who are doing this. It may be possible to deal with this problem from the standpoint of policy. Have any suggestions? I am also curious about any tags you or other editors think would be appropriate for the "Nathan Greene" article (other than AfD). Al Leluia81 (talk) 02:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Al Leluia81: A few things, first of all I know what the guidelines about doing a BEFORE are and I stated I did one in my nomination. So, I will request that next time you read the nomination message before passing judgment on a nominator and they did (or didn't do). Also, WP:AGF. That aside, I think the three people who voted delete agree with me that this person isn't notable. Which should have been enough for you to not make it personal. Second, I fully agree with you about why the Seventh-day Adventist banner being placed everywhere is problematic and shouldn't be done. While I'm not sure what specific policy it fall under, there is WP:TFD. Personally I would ask about it there and make it clear that the template is being extremely miss-used. It would likely also help to leave a message about it on @Catfurball:'s talk page. Since he seems to be the main user adding it everywhere. Along with the WP:SDA's talk page. One of those things should deal with it. At least when it comes to not using the template in places where it shouldn't be. Outside of that, I'm I don't think there is a way to have it removed from all the places it has been added to except to either have it deleted at WP:TFD or to manually remove it from everywhere that it's inappropriate like I did for this article. Adamant1 (talk) 10:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, my comments here are not personal, so I ask you not to take offense, but rather to hear my concerns about this AfD. I was surprised when I came to Wikipedia, and happened to search for "Nathan Greene", and found his article had been proposed for deletion. I have a longstanding interest in this kind of art (modern Jesus art), and am aware Greene is among the top artists in his field. I came to your contributions page and I saw that you are making many deletion requests.

On the day you made this AfD, you first edited an AfD request for a different article at 1:35 pm on September 13.

Then you added the AfD request on the stub "Nathan Greene" at 1:49 pm on Sept. 13, fourteen minutes later.

You then created the "Articles for deletion/Nathan Greene" page at 1:53 pm, and also added "Nathan Greene" to the "Articles for Deletion" log at 1:53 pm.

Then you an AfD notice on a talk page at 1:55 pm. You then tagged another SDA article at 2:00 pm, removed a wikilink to an SDA school on another SDA article at 2:03 pm, then made another AfD notice at 2:13 pm, about 13 minutes later.

In other words, you tagged one article for deletion, then fourteen minutes later tagged "Nathan Greene", and about 13 minutes later, tagged another one. I believe there was not enough time to have fulfilled the requirements before placing this AfD. Instead, it seems to be only time to glance through the article, click some links, and possibly do a few other things before assuming the topic to be non-notable and moving to delete it.

Making an AfD request is serious business. If a person blanks a page, that page can be brought back, easily. An AfD asks to "blank" a whole article, permanently. All the time put into it is gone. An editor has to make a case to an administrator to bring it back, it is costly in terms of time, and in the meantime its wikilinks disappear, it cannot be red-linked, and no reader can find it. In some cases, having notable articles deleted can possibly cause editors to leave Wikipedia.

I see at most 14 minutes or less to fulfill the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before nominating: checks and alternatives requirements.

You have said @Al Leluia81:: A few things, first of all I know what the guidelines about doing a BEFORE are and I stated I did one in my nomination. So, I will request that next time you read the nomination message before passing judgment on a nominator and they did (or didn't do). Also, WP:AGF..

Adamant1: There is nothing in here that I made "personal". You stated you did a "Before", then implied I did not read the nomination message and that I have "passed judgment on you". I already responded to the errors in your claim about this article in some detail, so I clearly read it.

You have also said, That aside, I think the three people who voted delete agree with me that this person isn't notable. Which should have been enough for you to not make it personal. What I hear you saying is that you believe that I should accept that you were unable to find sources, so no one else will be able to, and that if I offer a rationale to "Keep", that it is because I have "made personal" the issue, and should have agreed with you, and others who said "delete". Guidelines state, "Do not base your recommendation solely on the information supplied by the nominator or other editors. Please see AfD How to contribute.

I have found and supplied material that this stub is about an artist whose work has been commissioned by NASA, is in the Smithsonian Institution Air & Space Museum, among other things, see Irving Arts Center; "NASA|ART: 50 Years of Exploration": Nathan Greene's bio is on page 5.11 of the Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition artist's page. Your search did not find everything, so I do not see why you want to delete notable material. I base my "Keep" on facts. Please see Proof by assertion. Thank you for your time. Al Leluia81 (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Al Leluia81: A few things. For one, WP:AGF is not contingent on if the person that your not assume good faith about "takes it personal" or not. It is 100% determined how your acting toward the person though. The fact that you looked through my edits to find a reason why, based on how I've edited things, this AfD nomination isn't legitimate is totally not following WP:AGF. It's also totally personal, because there is no guideline that someone can't do two AfDs 14 minutes apart from each other. There's zero reason someone would look through another users edit history to find something to pick about how they are doing things if they were assuming good faith about the person. It's also WP:HOUNDING. Which includes "tracking users edits." Ultimately for all you know I could have done the WP:BEFORE "before" I did the nominations on my time. Which is exactly what I did. It's one of the reasons it's called a freaken WP:BEFORE, because it can be done any damn time before you do the nominations. The fact that you've missed that completely obvious fact is just more conformation that your not assuming good faith, WP:HOUNDING me, and coming at this completely wrong. Other then that, I have nothing else to say about it. You can attack me all you want, but it's irrelevant to the AfD and isn't going to change how it goes. At this point by continuing to do it your WP:BLUDGEON the whole thing. Everyone knows what your opinion is. Everyone can easily tell your claim that he's notable for being commissioned NASA, which you've said like 4 times now, isn't based on the guidelines. You don't need to repeat it or really say anything. BTW, your whole thing that it's hard to recreate an article after it's been deleted or that you have to appeal to an admin is total crap to. Nothing stops anyone from recreating deleted articles. People it all the time. It's not even that difficult to have an AfD outcome changed if someone wanted to go that route. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:09, 23 September 2020 (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.