Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Antonelle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Antonelle

Patrick Antonelle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article fails WP:BIO. It has nothing but uncited claims to establish notability and the external links just look like advertisements for his work. The article was created by and and it seems mostly maintained by the artist himself, and in a year hasn't been improved. -- Atamachat 18:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete No significant coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Is it something in the air today? Definite keep based on sources shown here [1] and here [2]. But that is just assuming the New York Times meets your criteria for notable. I know it meets mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoessss (talk • contribs) 19:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
    • None are significant and independant. Epbr123 (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
      • "Her father is a painter who is currently being exhibited at the National Arts Club in Manhattan." is not significant coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete No significant coverage in third-party sources; the Google News hits provided by Shoessss are only trivial in nature. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am sorry when has the New York Times with a direct quote from Wikipedia ; “…it is often regarded as a national newspaper of record, meaning that it is frequently relied upon as the official and authoritative reference for modern events.’’ and Art in America become trivial in nature? I always thought of them to be impartial, reliable and verifiable sources. 05:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Shoessss |  Chat 
  • Comment - Just a passing mention of his name and/or work within the pages of the New York Times does not make him notable. The coverage of him was not significant, as Epbr123 stated, that does not mean that the paper his name appeared in is not significant. -- Atamachat 17:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Press release generated mentions in media and large-scale distribution of art is standard for all artists. Wikipedia is not a directory of all artists, it is an encyclopedia that, as such, list notable people. So this article needs to cite more than ordinary notability. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per deleters above; coverage is not significant enough. Johnbod (talk) 09:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. Non-notable. freshacconcispeaktome 12:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Modernist (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete In keeping with the style of the aricle: Clubmarx called this article "non-notable" Clubmarx (talk) 00:37, 26 January 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.