Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Jacobs
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. BJTalk 19:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scott Jacobs[edit]
- Scott Jacobs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This article reads like an advertisement; more accurately, it reads like a resume for a job. "Scott Jacobs" is a well established [sic] painter... really? Why? Give me a source! Also: he "is one of today's most sought after [sic] artists". Prove it. Further, all the red links in the "work has been featured in" list are of articles that were once deleted, where only this article points to that link, or both. This is easily a promotion page that has no business on WP. Timneu22 (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable painter. 173.100.3.240 (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC) — 173.100.3.240 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The references listed are both primary sources, as the gallery pointed to in ref. 2 also seems to belong to the artist. If anything, once verified, could be incorporated into the Harley Davidson article. --Deadchildstar (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nn...Modernist (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, All the links that I found were to sites trying to sell his painting. Nothing that discusses him or his paintings. nn. A new name 2008 (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The nominator did not correctly specify an appropriate edit summary in the article when nominating for deletion, per WP:AFDHOWTO, I have now rectified this with a dummy edit. Jeni (talk)(Jenuk1985) 18:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to lack of third-party references and failing WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, clearly. One of the two "references" is to the artist's own web site, and the other is to a promotional site for Harley-Davidsons, the subject of his art. Nothing at all from any 3rd party source. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No objective sources. JNW (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It seems like no one else is going to point this out so I guess I will. Scott Jacobs also has a published book: "The Motorcycle Art of Scott Jacobs" ISBN 0963733621 and according to "American Motorcyclist" he is indeed a licensed artist [1] and his paintings are on display in the Motorcycle Hall of Fame Museum at the AMA headquarters. [2] Scott Jacobs is also listed in the photo credits for "The Harley-Davidson century" ISBN 0760311552 [3] The only reason I'm mentioning this here is it seems no one else has bothered to do any checking. I removed the prod from this article originally [4] after the nom prodded it others without any rationale or edit summary. [5] --Tothwolf (talk) 01:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand "no one else has bothered to do any checking". I thought that it was clear from my post above that I had done some checking, and the same applies to Deadchildstar's post. A new name 2008 explicitly says "All the links that I found...". Perhaps a more important point, though, is to wonder what the purpose is of giving those links. I guess to establish notability. However, all they establish is that Scott Jacobs has had some pictures published and displayed, which is what you would expect of any professional artist, notable or not. Giving a link to a web page about a book which used Scott Jacobs's pictures is not evidence of notability: giving a link to a book about Scott Jacobs's work would be a big step in the right direction: that is what "third party" sources means. Nobody so far has shown the existence of any third party coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I WP:DGAF. The only reason I left a comment here is the obvious uninformed "Delete" me too combo pile-on above. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My comment wasn't an uninformed "me too" - I clicked on every link for about two pages worth and found no reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Deadchildstar (talk) 06:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I WP:DGAF. The only reason I left a comment here is the obvious uninformed "Delete" me too combo pile-on above. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand "no one else has bothered to do any checking". I thought that it was clear from my post above that I had done some checking, and the same applies to Deadchildstar's post. A new name 2008 explicitly says "All the links that I found...". Perhaps a more important point, though, is to wonder what the purpose is of giving those links. I guess to establish notability. However, all they establish is that Scott Jacobs has had some pictures published and displayed, which is what you would expect of any professional artist, notable or not. Giving a link to a web page about a book which used Scott Jacobs's pictures is not evidence of notability: giving a link to a book about Scott Jacobs's work would be a big step in the right direction: that is what "third party" sources means. Nobody so far has shown the existence of any third party coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My part in the 'pile-on' yesterday was the observation that there didn't seem to be any objective sources supporting notability, hence the vote to delete. All references and external links are to the subject's website. JNW (talk) 03:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the sources found above as well as [6] and significant coverage found here. Looks like enough there to establish sufficient notability. MuZemike 07:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Here are 3 more sources from the second page of a Google search: [7] [8] [9] --Tothwolf (talk) 08:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The fact that you can google him does not alone make him notable. The one source above, from the Salt Lake City *local* ezine, tells me that he sells his paintings on cruise ships - this actually supports him being *non-notable*. The other links here - one to an amazon page - only confuse the matter. It would seem he's a commercial artist who is allowed to paint the Harley logo. There is *no* coverage that states that this is a notable feat - it only implies that Harley Davidson wanted the advertising. The other link isn't about him, he has a trivial mention. The other sources are for Cycle News - not art. And the press release from his gallery is a primary source. I can find no *third-party coverage* that states that his art is notable and why. Deadchildstar (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thats an interesting interpretation. I think the fact that he was the first licensed Harley Davidson artist and established their fine art program means he more than meets the guidelines for inclusion. Those facts are backed up in the refs mentioned. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, going back and re-searching and looking at the new sources in the article do not change my mind that he is a notable painter. My original recommendation to delete was not an "uninformed me too". It was based on looking at the information that I could find. The information did not indicate that he is notable. A new name 2008 (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2009 (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.