Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandro Nocentini

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. John254 16:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandro Nocentini[edit]

Obvious vanity violation, proof is in the edit comments left in the history. I also recommend we do NOT move the GFDL-released image into commons, but delete it in good faith that the author of the work/uploader was likely unfamiliar with GFDL and would not appreciate finding his work used for a commercial purpose (click here). ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Notability established by winning the Sulman Prize, which is now sourced. Passes, if barely, the requirements of WP:CREATIVE. Could use sourcing for the rest of the article, though. RayAYang (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 01:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment by nominator this article has improved with sources and it's nice to see other edits on the page besides those made by the article's subject. however, i wasn't aware winning an award (admittedly a significant award... we have an article on it XD ) was part of WP:CREATIVE. In fact, the award is why i didn't prod this article outright. If the community feels it makes him noteworthy, and are ok with this rare exception to WP:AUTO, we should add this to the guideline :) The sources provided are an article which is actually about John Olsen, a school/tutoring site with autobiographies of its staff, and a mention in an article about a compilation book on Princess Diana - they establish verifiability, but that's it. I personally hate notability criteria, but the fact that the artist is the one who wrote the article (clear COI issue) and made any substantive edits over the past few years until now, suggests that he's not even significant enough for wikipedia editors to look for him. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 14:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say that Tyrenius has made enough changes that it's no longer an autobiography, and he's received significant levels of critical attention, judging by the new references -- I rather assumed that winning a notable award was reasonable evidence of getting a fair bit of critical attention, but wasn't sure, hence the weakness in my original suggestion. I know almost nada about art, after all. RayAYang (talk) 02:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:AUTO isn't a reason to delete. I've rewritten the whole article anyway. The Art Gallery of New South Wales defines the Sir John Sulman Prize as one of four "major art prizes". It is "awarded annually for 'the best subject/genre painting and/or murals/mural project executed during the two years preceding the [closing] date ...' " WP:CREATIVE can be satisfied by "The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention." I suggest that the winning of this prize meets all those requirements. The artist is now on record for evermore. I note also that all the winners of the Prize have been listed and wikilinked. Ty 04:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article's been improved and merits inclusion...Modernist (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2008 (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.