Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gian Andrea Scarello

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete per user consensus agains new user votes. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 23:59, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gian Andrea Scarello

A bit on a non-article, although more complete versions are on the Italian and German wikis. However the artist appears non-notable (Google only give self-authored links) and this may be self promotion. There is a related article at Contemporary Baroque Art which is also dubious, but I've yet to form a view on that one. Delete, or ask the Italian wiki whether they believe he is notable. Solipsist 19:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Further comment - I'm not convinced that SpeedyDeletion is appropriate. Its not vandalism, its not patent nonsense, and although there is little content, the interwikis to the Italian article shows it has the capacity to expand. The real question is whether he is notable. -- Solipsist 20:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I can see your point, but the .it CBA article used to invalidate the "no content" reasoning reads as a Scarello fan club register. But you're right, it does fall to notability, so I'll change my vote accordingly. --Gunmetal
  • Speedy, "very short article providing little or no context." WP:CSD Dcarrano 20:01, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy, like I originally tagged it. -- Gunmetal 20:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC) Delete NN per Solipsist. --Gunmetal 22:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC) Mr.Gunmental to change the own opinion, it means not to have idea on the article! Not credible ballot --Peterloud 19:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Please don't mark out my vote. You've had enough of your own, I think I am due at least one. --Gunmetal 20:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
your ballot is not ' credible, to change continuously is not credible, of it you make one issue of personal pride without having acquaintanceof the argument --Peterloud 19:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Please show me the rule that says I am not free to change my vote to better accord with the rules laid forth in the deletion policy (a policy you would be well served to investigate fully... please stop striking out all my entries.) I have not made this an issue of personal pride, you have. I have only asked you to provide some sort of proof of notability (from multiple independant sources), which you either refuse to or can not do. Questioning MY credibility is not going to serve you well in this discussion. --Gunmetal 21:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless expanded to show notability. --Etacar11 01:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 08:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this and Contemporary Baroque Art (a straight translation of the article on it.wiki). On balance, I'm not convinced by either. It may be a neoclassicism for our times, but one artist does not make a movement: it looks like a commercial promotion. On the other hand, who would have thought that Tracey Emin's unmade bed would be high art? --Red King 09:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Verifiable NPOV info can be kept as a stub. There is a hint of commercial promotion, though - so I suspect the claims are neither verifiable nor NPOV. Perhaps someone who reads Italian or German could check on it? Dystopos 14:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


" Strong- Keep " All the artists cannot be famous as leonardo da vinci ,we must clear what means: to be or not to be famous. All the painters are not famous..... only when they are died. The career of this artist is much rich one of happening This type of art is a movement,It does not take advantage itself of the classicism. [1][2] this art has many fans. [3] etc.... --Yermet 17:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment None of these linked pages reference Scarello, they are merely isolated usages of the term "contemporary baroque art" (except the last one, which isn't even that). Nothing here indicates a defined art style or lends credibility to the importance of Scarello. Dystopos 17:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


Comment : Keep We do not have to use only material that we find in Internet.

for knowing to write sure critical comments ,on the artistic disciplines, before we must go to the school....but not of poor journalism...sorry my Friend. As an example, If you want to visit an of this painter, you can go in Quanzhou, in China, One of the more famous Exposure of contemporary art; where to a smaller number of European artists (only much famous and a lot important)can participate . In adding: if the critics of art estimate its paintings,so very expansive (as an example 60000 US Dollar and more!!!) will be a reason... O.K. it is not famous as the statues of my Greece but we must to do attention...not to offend sure personalities.

Friend, I understand you, do not exaggerate, do not write a long article...But the short biography I find it just --Yermet 20:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC) (As you might expect, a new user with 5 edits, most in relation to Gian Andrea Scarello. -- Solipsist 21:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC))

    • Comment I have not (yet) voted to delete the article, but I have mentioned that I suspect the information is not verifiable. Nothing has been added to this discussion to shed any light on the verifiability of Scarello's standing or importance (which is subtly different than his fame or acclaim). If you have access to resources which would verify the claims, then please share them with us. From what I can tell, not being a reader of German, it seems that if Scarello has any note, it is as a founder of a small Commedia dell'Arte theater company in Mainz, and certainly not as the founder of school or style of art, or as a painter. [4] Dystopos 21:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Very-Strong- Keep If you have doubts that it is also a painter, I invite to you to watch some paintings of he: [5]--Yermet 09:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I've seen those. Evidently he paints, too. And wants a whole lot of money for the paintings. No evidence that his influence or accomplishment as a painter is in any way notable. If you have doubts that he is not a notable painter, I invite you to the same gallery. Dystopos 13:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
The crux of the matter is that we are not art critics, we are encyclopedia editors. I have yet to see anything from an independant reliable source that validates his inclusion in this encyclopedia. --Gunmetal 13:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Very-Very-Strong- Keep

It is not an argument on the personal pleasure.

The painting is one free and conceptual art.The painters who make commerce are not important and they do not cost more than 3000 US dollar..., the art is not commerce even if the paintings cost...

I believed that:

Wiki is not an advertising newspaper. Wiki is not a Chat for poor arguments. Wiki is one free encyclopedia. But it does not have to be manipulated... Everyone of we gives its knowledge on specific topics. Without valid scientific goals they do not provoke argument. I it respects your opinion, but me he does not seem reliable. Too much mistaken and with contained not expert. I do not allow myself to write arguments on articles that of which I am not much expert. Even if sure times if these me seem improbable, I do not make comments.... I could be mistaken and write stupid things. For this I understand some various reactions in the argument, it must make much attention... In adding this artist is the much most famous one than other personages who fill up the pages of wiki... I would want to end the argument here (I already I am admonished in order to have too much written ). I want to leave all your common sense and, I hope, to logic of the disciplines of the academic knowledge, etc. ...Thanks and good continuation--Yermet 14:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - non-notable - Tεxτurε 20:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment 39 English language Google results on "Gian Andrea Scarello", all of them either from his personal webpage, its various mirrors, or adspace that links back to a mirror. How can we still be arguing about notability? --Gunmetal 20:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep Notable --Forig 12:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC) <-- just created account today, and looks like a sock puppet. --Gunmetal 16:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep Important Italian artist,famous for his paintings about the Italian Theatre. Also in Austria, it will be possible to admire some beautiful works of him.From May to November 2006, in the Castle of in Trauten_fels . Organized from the Landes_museum Joanneum-Graz Peterloud 14:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC) <-- just created account today, one hour after the last post by Forig. Also looks like a sock puppet. --Gunmetal 16:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC) <-- ???What you allow to write these stupid things about of me? I am entered from one hour (only), but it is better than you go outside! I am not a sock or puppet! Shame! I am not the Mafia)--Peterloud 18:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Gunmetal meant no great offense. A sockpuppet is a user account created by someone for the purposes of trying to vote more than once and sway a VFD vote (usually). See WP:SOCK for more info. Someone who creates an account and immediately votes on a VFD is always looked on with a bit of suspicion. --Etacar11 19:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • explanation - The term sockpuppet has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, and VfD is one of the more battle-tested sites for dealing with the phenomenon. Basically what we are looking for with this vote is a consensus of the Wikipedia community. The WP community is made up of editors that are objectively concerned with the project as a whole. Therefore, in determining a consensus, the comments of people whose concerns extend only to single issues can be justifiably ignored. People who have apparently only registered to enter a vote on VfD can be assumed not to be part of the community yet. The comments of people who do not assume good faith or who engage in personal attacks will also be ignored. Furthermore, these tactics tend to reflect poorly on the possibility of legitimately justifying the article being disputed. It is presumed that strident arguments that have no substance to them indicate that no valid arguments exist, or they would have been brought to bear already. Dystopos 20:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


Thanks of the information to Etacar11 and Dystopos  : but this user (Gunmetal)is not reliable, it changes continuously the idea on the argument,It does not possess valid arguments and it "attacks" the others user.. It is also a newcommer in wikipendia: perhaps the sock... he must to give it to... him --Peterloud 20:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I have not changed my thoughts on this argument. I only agreed, after Solipsist's point, that this is simply a Delete instead of a Speedy Delete. My point remains the same, there is simply not enough third party information available on this individual to claim notability. I'm sorry if you feel that by having this opinion I am personally attacking you; that is not my intent. --Gunmetal 20:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


Comment Not problem my friend, dear Gunmetal( and all Wikipedia-Friens), I want to ask You to find a compromise, it is important that this argument supplies a good Wikipedia-example. The opinions are too much various: too much negative or too much positive .What I propose? As an example, with a short article(but not too mutch) Me it seems just to propose a not long article, a compromise for all the opinions...This argument resists from too many days, it is right to allow the administrators to close it, with wisdom and intelligence. Pleasing all we. --Peterloud 12:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Changed to No vote - I just took a whack at correcting the grammar in the recent edits. It was a difficult task and the original text made the subject unclear. Can someone verify that we are talking about an artist? Many references to "it" made me unsure. If the subject is actually a type of art just revert my attempt and start over. - Tεxτurε 13:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

dear Tεxτurε, please, do You want to control this German article? , perhaps you can translate it:[6] --Peterloud 13:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

No one controls an article. I made a first attempt to clean up the syntax. Hopefully, the next person can take it from there. I am not knowledgable about the subject and probably someone else can give it the proper perspective. I hope I have done some good. - Tεxτurε 16:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC))Dear friend Texture , I believe that You have made a good job, I would make the article little more short--Peterloud 19:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC))
  • Comment I know that inclusionists like to include every article no matter what, but many people seem to have a skewed view of artist notability. Its really not sufficient to have just sold a painting or something, for the most part that is a level of notability equivalent to having a job. Cambridge, where I live, is less than half the size of Venice yet has several hundred active artists (you can find a subset here), very few would really merit an encyclopedia article.
Now this weekend I started an article on Afewerk Tekle, Ethiopia's most famous artist - we didn't have anything before, although there was an article on the German wiki. In the process, I came across this list of other Ethiopian artists. Notice how many of them have had solo exhibitions, have exhibited internationally, and have their work in national collections. I doubt we will have articles on any of these artists any time soon, but these are the sort of criteria that should be considered with respect to notability. I'm sure that for most of the artists in that list online verifiability will be difficult, but I'm equally sure that if asked, many of them could point to publications where their work is discussed.
In general, self promotion is one of the required skills of a modern artists. However, if an artist is writing articles about themselves, but isn't able to point to their national and international shows, or their work being discussed in art journals and the like, it is a fair bet that their notability falls well below the professor test. I can't see why Wikipedia should help promote their work over and above the work of the several million similar artists. -- Solipsist 14:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment Your doubts are the test of Yours little acquaintance on the argument. They are not only famous,the Africans artists who work in England. Other artists, that You do not know, and that they work in other regions, they come just recognized like "famous". This does not mean, that those that You do not know, they are automatically not famous.I do not believe that someone tries to make "promotion" of if same (!?)(an accusation without reason, my user-search on i.p. number ) . I Believe, that the artists of Cambridge , they are not happy of what You write, Yours opinion are without critical-explanation ... You remove they every hope ....but Your opinion is not new: many other sages,many years ago , it had the doubt on the importance of "Van Gogh".....p.s. perhaps I have time to visit Your article aboute the Africans artists, and to open one new nice discussion)--Peterloud 16:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

You seem confused. Afewerk Tekle does not live and work in England, although he did go to school there. As it says in the article, apart from a year or two traveling and giving lecture tours, he has spent most of his life living and working in Addis Ababa. -- Solipsist 17:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

'Comment You have reason, as You can well understand, I do not know the artist, famous (?), of which you write, exactly as You do not know the artist, famous (?), of which I write in this page....perhaps we are confused, both... --Peterloud 18:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

  • (Invalid Vote) Keep Yes, personality --April12 11:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
    • A smarter than average Sock puppet. Got rid of the red name immediately. Here's April12's contributions:
      * 06:41, 27 July 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Authentic Matthew (→Keep) (top)
      * 06:28, 27 July 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gian Andrea Scarello (→Gian Andrea Scarello) (top)
      * 06:26, 27 July 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Cape Lookout, North Carolina (→Cape Lookout, North Carolina) (top)
      * 06:09, 27 July 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Steve Bennett (manga artist) (→Steve Bennett (manga artist)) (top)
      * 06:01, 27 July 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/George Howeth (→George Howeth) (top)
      * 05:59, 27 July 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Playstation 4 (→Playstation 4)
      * 05:58, 27 July 2005 (hist) (diff) User:April12 (top)
      * 05:51, 27 July 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/6 o'clock in the morning (→6 o'clock in the morning) (top)
It would have been more convenient if they had chosen the username July27... -- Solipsist 13:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

My Friend I believe that You have reason Mr.Solipsist . April me seems a not fidabile "month" ....or "girl" --Peterloud 16:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


Definitely a familiar voting method.... we've seen that a few times in this particular VfD so far. At least this time he kept the vote text short, so his writing style isn't as identifiable. --Gunmetal 14:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC) Definitely a familiar voting method ? You are too much against to the article in discussion . It is "April" parent of your "family voting method" ? It is only my thought, naturally without offense ... but I begin to believe that You are a sock puppetIf it is not true ,what I say, then I excuse with You, Mr.Gunmetal --Peterloud 16:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I'd love to form a quality retort to that, but I've read it 5 or 6 times and I still can't figure out what you're trying to say. Instead of attacking me, perhaps you should focus on providing some evidence of notability for Scarello. That is, after all, the only issue of importance here. --Gunmetal 17:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Last Comment

  1. But this is not discussed! If You are not expert , it cannot be discussed. About the "Scarello" there are more information than what You ask , and of what the Vote of Wikipedia demand . I Do not want more to discuss with You.You provoked to an enormous pressure against this article (intellectual violence), To my opinion, Your reliability dont convince me.On Your opinion , there is something of strange, without reason: something that does not have relationship with the article on the Scarello. Like suspicion a Tandem-Voting-job with the User "Solipsist" ("Familiar voting method" ? Or , perhaps, it is a a new mode for convincing :"Vanity-Tandem-Vote voting method" ? )
  2. About Notability: In your voting, used too many different measures. As an example: between the article of Scarello and the article on the African artist , that You have written, it appears clearly that: Your African artists,Afewerk Tekle,has very, very, much less of the evidence of notability of Scarello ,that you do not recognize, also against every strongly personality evidence.For this example I do not want more to discuss about your incompetence about this ! If you do not have idea of this Scarello-article, please not tried to deny, with strange comments and without reason, the Voting of the other Users.
  3. 'I ask,kindly, that an administrator puts this argument in the archives.
  4. After this comment I do not want more to write and to answer to you . Now You can try to convince other Users, Your attempt with me has not had effect. The Voting is democratic and free,like a Your opinion, but now You cannot hide behind the evidence of my affirmations. Getlteman I pray You not to call itself more in cause on this disussion .

In every case, dear "Tandem Company" Thank You for Your denied supporting comment.Please you do not take this like a personal attack, but in this argument it is important to donate tests and not only words. I repeat my Vote it remains: KEEP . Thanks--Peterloud 13:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Though I take great offense at the implication that Solipsist and I are involved in some mastermind scheme to destroy this article, I'm going to let it go because it will serve no one to argue with you any further. I hope your experieces on this VfD don't keep you from contributing useful articles in the future. Best of luck. --Gunmetal 14:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep , cleanup and expand . Notable --Allredy 19:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
(This is this user's first entry --Gunmetal 19:28, 28 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.