Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Michael Dasburg

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 per WP:SNOW. —David Eppstein 17:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Michael Dasburg

Andrew Michael Dasburg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable painter, no assertation of notability beyond an obituary in the newspaper. Other "source" is from promotional website. Some guy 03:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. A New York Times obituary shows notability. Anyone who receives an obituary in the New York Times is inherently notable. Crazysuit 04:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep While this article may never rise to the encyclopedic notability of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (Nintendo DS), this stub of an article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability for one of America's early modernist painters. The inherent notability provided by an obituary published in The New York Times is just a cherry on top. Rather than follow Wikipedia:deletion policy, which requires that nominators make good faith efforts to research potential notability and make edits to improve the article, it appears that some guy came along minutes after the article was created with the intention of starting an AfD, regardless of the notability of the subject. Alansohn 04:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • And you're demonstrating good faith by making personal attacks? I don't consider an obituary to be notable. Many people get obituaries. The other cited sources are weak and do not correlate well to the information attributed to them. Some guy 05:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    • "Many people get obituaries", sure - but in the New York Times? I don't think so. Resurgent insurgent 05:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    • The article and the sources speak for themselves. I'd strongly suggest reading and understanding Wikipedia:deletion policy (let alone criteria for speedy deletion), and becoming more familiar with The New York Times's and its obituary policies. I think you'll find that it's not "an absoluely^[sic] pathetic assertion of notability" after all. Alansohn 05:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Why don't you take a look at WP:BIO, specifically "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". Furthermore, Dasburg does not fall under any of the "Specific examples of sources". I don't know of any Wikipedia policy that says New York Times obituary automatically equals notable. And I stand by my assertion that 12 whole interlinks and an obituary do not assert notability. Please refrain from further personal attacks. I'm not stalking your edits. Some guy 06:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Subject of a 24 page article in the American Art Journal. I can't believe this was tagged with a speedy. Zagalejo^^^ 05:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • At the time of the speedy, there was no assertion of notability. Check the page history. Some guy 07:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The article as nominated said he was part of the Armory Show, possibly the single most famous art exhibition in US history. As this major claim of notability was sourced from the NYT, the nominator should have been less jumpy. That said, article writers should be careful to ensure that major claims of notability are in the article (preferably even the intro), not inside footnotes. --Dhartung | Talk 07:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep User:Some guy merits censure for abuse of this process. Colonel Warden 08:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep He was a notable pioneer of American modernism and this is a ludicrous nomination. How a lengthy obit in the New York Times can be seen as 'trival coverage' is unfathomable. How can the nominator think an article like Earthsiege 2 is notable if Dasburg is not? There are now 13 solid references in the article, did the nominator bother researching this man for even a second before nominating it for deletion? Nick mallory 12:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 14:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Solid references are provided. The subject is clearly notable. There is no apparent reason why this should be nominated for deletion (I will assume good faith and leave it at that). Freshacconci | Talk 14:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep with the added sources, this qualifies for any reasonable inclusion criteria. I think the weather report calls for a WP:SNOW flurry, localised right here, right now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, an important American Modernist painter. I proposed someone write an article about him several months ago. He showed his paintings with Alfred Stieglitz at the Little Galleries of the Photo-Secession or the 291 - as notable as you can get. Please. Modernist 16:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This man is all over the web like a rash. There are sources all over the shop. The article needs tarted up though. scope_creep 16:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

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.