Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Z. Gilbert

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. Not sufficient verification to substantiate notability. Tyrenius (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Julian Z. Gilbert

Julian Z. Gilbert (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

I can find no reliable sources for the existence of this painter. The sources provided go to the main page of a website that isn't searchable, as far as I can tell, so even if the information is really there, I can't find it. There are only 11 Google hits for "Julian Z. Gilbert", most of them to ebay sellers attempting to sell his works, which, surprisingly, are not the "portraits" that the article says he's noted for. And this may just be my eyes, but the signatures on those works don't look like "Julian Gilbert" to me. There is only one non-Wikipedia hit for "Julian Zangwell Gilbert", and that's to a forum page. The article itself is a part of the Vitus Barbaro hoax. Corvus cornix_talk 19:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

SAVE Let me express a fair opionion of what should be done with this article. First off, the artist's work was clearly listed on ebay as "Julian Z. Gilbert", so there is no problem of those works being attributed to him. 2nd, the images themselves were added by Joel Gilbert, a relative, so there is no issue about copyrights. 3rd, to even have works published into lithographs means one is noted - just like an author being published - therfore by nature notable. 4th, there is no such thing as a Vitus hoax, the person has been proven to be real- so it was always a misunderstanding, rather than a hoax, with also further evidence showing that confussion was just be the work of hackers posting fake IP's. finally, the sourcing provides all information where poeple can get catalogues themselves and see the formal listing of the artist- a valid sourceMctrain (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• You keep claiming that the images were uploaded by Joel Gilbert, who you claim is a relative of this unverifiable artist, but you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence to support your contention. Corvus cornix_talk 22:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You have every ability to contact the Wikipeia account labeled as "Joel Gilbert" when the pictures were added- talk to that person before you make false assumptions.Mctrain (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, as Google search on the only site mentioned as a reference doesn't find him.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 22:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Also the "Addison Gallery of American Art" is in Andover, MA, not Chicago.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 22:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

SAVE google as the standard of noteriaty is not a valid basis for removal. Google searches only pull up names that have been added to internet articles or listings- hardly relevant. Therefore, googling as a means of inclusion of Wikipedia is a bogus position and not valid to any discussion of inclusion on Wikipedia.Mctrain (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to keep this article if it could be verified. As of now, there are no sources to verify that he ever existed. And I get quite a few hits for William Mosby, and sources for more, off-line. Corvus cornix_talk 22:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• He is fully listed in the source cited, which is fully verifiable by the designated year catalogue that is attainable for anyone.Mctrain (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't think this is a hoax. A couple of online artist resumes mention studying under someone of the same name, and the dates seem right: [1], [2]. But, this just gives circumstantial evidence for the subject's existence, perhaps as a teacher at the American Academy of Arts in the 1960/70s. I can't find any sources as yet to support notability. I take the point about the limitation of online sources for artists of this period (see User:Tyrenius/Historical systemic bias for an essay on the subject), and am willing to change my !vote if any sources, online or otherwise, can be found.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Just because the person is real doen't meanthe article can't be a hoax. Edward321 (talk) 05:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• If a person is noting studing under someone, then that is valid notability- you don't list studing under someone of non-significance.Mctrain (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, great, I can list all of my high school teachers and they can get their own articles, then! Corvus cornix_talk 23:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • A teacher is significant to their students. Which is how it should be; but some have a wider significance: [3]. Their notabilty, though, rests on more than a couple of passing references in resumes.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to art resumes' listing who they studied under is a big dealMctrain (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Yet another "functionally unverifiable" [4] article. The alleged source is false. Seaching that site, there is no listing for a Julian Gilbert [5] [6] The one possible claim to notability, establishing the Addison Gallery, also seems to be false - there are Addison Galleries in Massachusetts and Florida, but none in Chicago and none founded by a Julian Gilbert. [7] Edward321 (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Edward321. And given that some of it seems outright false, delete as probable hoax. --Calton | Talk 01:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Ethicoaestheticist that this fellow certainly existed. However, the article's creator explicitly stated that the source of his information was the artist's widow, and I can find no record of the only printed source that the article has ever cited. (I've searched for various combinations of Utrecht, "Portrait Artists", Chicago, and "Julian Gilbert" in WorldCat and—under the assumption that a research library in the Chicago area would be the most likely place to possess such a work—in the online catalogs of the Chicago Public Library, the Newberry Library, and the libraries of the University of Chicago, Northwestern University, and the Art Institute of Chicago.) Unless someone can turn up one or more reliable sources that can be used to verify the information in the article, I have to say delete. Deor (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete why don't you just get it over with and delete it already. You reject the actual source that the info came from, which is fully attainable from the website of the cited listing of The American Socieity of Portrait Artists. You already removed the pictures added by a family member. Addison Gallery was on Addison Street in Chicago, which it said in the source. Delete it, what's the point of going through this - as if there is going to be some final consensus of retaining the article after everything is all said and done. You are just prolonging the enevitable.Mctrain (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment You've !voted Keep twice, and Delete once. It's okay to leave your comments, but you really should strike 2 of your !votes. Edward321 (talk) 05:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No doubt all true, but no assertion of notability. Johnbod (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2008 (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.