Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberto De Luna

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 until multiple reliable sources can demonstrate notability. 1 != 2 23:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto De Luna[edit]

Suggest Delete, although I don't really have a dog in this hunt. Notability debated on talk page. All sources seem to be notices of showings/directory type listings. Only mention in a notable source is from the New Yorker, but from the "What's going on around town" section - essentially a directory listing. Does not appear to meet the standards of WP:BIO. Pastordavid (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:N. Merely citing sources that he is an artist does not establish notability; some sort of nontrivial coverage is needed. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. The talk-page section here, since deleted by the article's author, seems to indicate some exaggeration in claims to notability. --CliffC (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient coverage in verifiable sources to validate the article. I'm a bit surprised it went to AfD so quickly. Please consider posting on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts for extra eyes in the future, and remember WP:BITE. The editor is making a strong effort to properly craft the article. Tyrenius (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but his repeated removal of comments by others from the talk page does not help his case. Johnbod (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey John, I haven't deleted any comments. If I have it was an accident. Stop being such a douche. 19:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobyspinks (talk • contribs)

You deleted DeLuna talk page comments here, here, and here, as well as blanking your own talk page at least twice. This does not put you in a good light. --CliffC (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CliffC those comments were deleted because 1) the issue was resolved with the gay artist category 2) the talk about Peter Hay Halpert was read by me and understood (no action was necessary) and 3) I fixed the references to work with the content in the article. I wasn't aware that talk comments were not to be deleted until I heard it here. I figured it was more of an email type situation. A way to speak with the author of the article. Frankly the talk pages come up on Google searches and can be very annoying when people are looking for specific things and find talk pages with people complaining about each other. Tobyspinks (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Notability not achieved yet. Johnbod (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability has been verified. "The New York Blade saw this as one of 'three quality solo exhibits by queer artists' which were part of a trend for photography to challenge painting as the preferred medium for gay male artists." De Luna's work was seen as a challenge to the preferred medium for gay male artists. De Luna uses old cameras it's a specific style. He's been written about in magazines (had pieces in very specific high end photo periodicals like Eyemazing) and had numerous shows at galleries and museums. Tobyspinks (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Tobyspinks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Tyrenius (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:Single purpose account states: "There is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with single-purpose accounts." And this account is not a sock puppet account. I created an article based on something I know about in order to share with it the community and add it to the public consciousness. I have no desire to edit other articles on wiki. There are far enough cooks in the kitchen already. Tobyspinks (talk) 18:18, 14 December 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.