Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michal Golos

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 23:52 (UTC)

[edit] Michal Golos

Orphaned VfD nomination by User:Dennis Valeev. Could be a hoax related to articles Louis Farhad, Darren Wogman and Barney spiro (all in VfD). Zero Google hits. Some anon is repeatedly removing the VfD notice from the article. No vote yet. jni 19:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Hi, I was the original creator of this article. I was a personal friend of Michal Golos and went to school with him in the 1960s. I made this page as I thought that other people should know about his unique talent and be able to see some of his work. Some of his cartoons are actually available on the net, though he is rarely credited (Moona Liza is an example). I, however, do not endorse the behaviour of some of the users who have been editing this page (including deleting certain portions of the article). I assure you this is not a hoax. Please feel free to ask any more questions. Regards, Richard.
  • (above comment by User:DRonalds)
  • In that case could you please post some links to his cartoons in Net? I tried searching for "Moona Liza", but couldn't find anything relevant. Or any other independently verifiable source, e.g. a reference to Golos in a published encyclopedia of artists, magazine articles, books ... will do. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources for the standard we try to set for information sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so by definition we should not include information that is unverifiable or about non-notable subject matters. However, if a source that establishes notability can be found, this VfD can be ended quickly. jni 21:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• how is Darren Wogman at all related to this article?, who the hell is barney spiro, i happen to know about Darren Wogman as i was on the board that decided to seacrh for this 'lost' research. due to the fact that many thought he went mad, and immediatly dismissed his work means that there is very little information, i was hoping wikipedia could be an important resource as it is a full document about him, most of his information can be found in a single conveniant place. i though wikipedia was an embracing and inviting place ,obviusly not.
  • (above comment by User:195.93.21.66) jni 21:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverified. --Etacar11 01:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 09:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep although at the moment unverifiable this could be true. does not seem like typical vanity or hoax. i would wait and see what dRonalds says. keep for the moment
  • This by 217.207.114.109 (talk • contribs). smoddy 12:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Being unverifiable is a reason to delete an article, not to keep it. Uncle G 15:57, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• weak Keep looks real to me. maye be only real reference to this guy on the net, who knows? concur with above anon.
  • unsigned vote by Mgiganteus, account created yesterday. --Etacar11 22:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, because I didn't know how to sign it...
      • You use four tildes (~) --Etacar11 23:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • only real reference to this guy on the net — If this article is the only place anywhere that this information can be found, then it is unverifiable and should be deleted. Uncle G 15:57, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.