Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Genovese
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous. I count 7 "delete" votes (anon nomination discounted) and 4 "keep" votes. Daniel C. Boyer appears to have abstained. While there is a majority to delete, there is not the supermajority necessary to indicate concensus. Failing to reach a clear concensus to delete, the decision defaults to keep for now. Rossami (talk) 01:13, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Richard Genovese
- Delete Non-Notable Vanity Page created by Anon user 68.18.252.229
The article subject gets 600 plus hits on Google as Richard Genovese Surrealist and the first hit is this Wikipedia Vanity Article written for him by Anon as promotion. The listing of article subject in Who's Who (see both publications on article page) cannot verify facts on notablility since anyone can get listed in both publications (see past VfD discussion by other Wiki users trying to verify this article). The Museum of Modern Art publication that he is listed as being in, brings up no evidence of the article that he is supposed to be featured in upon doing SEARCH on the MOMA website from link on this page! Article is also in violation of advertising and spam, article subject publishes and sells his non-notable publication. Note: Article Subject is supposed to be active in Surrealism and the Arts for many years, and has very little reference history online that should easily be verified in order to warrant an article written for him to appear in this encyclopedia. Recommend a user page for this article subject.Classicjupiter2 23:55, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
- Again, what is this "online" bias? What is wrong with the offline cites given? Are you going to even try to justify any of this? --Daniel C. Boyer 20:54, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:27, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, another stealth ad/hoax. Wyss 00:28, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Do you even know what the word "hoax" means? Are you saying that the New York Times and Who's Who are in on this hoax? --Daniel C. Boyer 20:54, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "stealth ad" when all of Wikipedia is on the World Wide Web? --Daniel C. Boyer 18:29, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- A stealth ad is an ad that is disguised as something else (such as an encyclopedia article). And even major papers are sometimes vulnerable to hoaxes. That doesn't mean they're "in on it". Radiant! 13:54, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Of course even major papers are sometimes vulnerable to hoaxes. But does that mean that before we see evidence that the paper has been suckered we should assume that what's in it is a hoax. Wyss hasn't asserted any reason why he thinks that the existence of Richard Genovese is a hoax, yet he still asserts it. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- A stealth ad is an ad that is disguised as something else (such as an encyclopedia article). And even major papers are sometimes vulnerable to hoaxes. That doesn't mean they're "in on it". Radiant! 13:54, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, vanity/advert Tygar 03:37, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, vanity, advert. Megan1967 05:44, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Mention of the artist in the New York Times in 1987 seems legitimate Mar 15, 1987. I also get 906 google hits for "Richard Genovese" -Wikipedia [1]. Article should be rewritten with a bit less surrealism clique cruft, but subject seems adiquately notable. -- Infrogmation 17:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I sincerely disagree, Infrogmation. Not really legit, due to the fact that the article in question was in a magazine supplement, Long Island Weekly section of New York Times. This reference listing is really misleading in regards to notability, though the NY Times does list practically everything in their archives. This "article", though it appeared in the NY Times archives online, it did appear in the attached magazine supplement, it did not appear in the significant ARTS section of NY Times (or am I wrong?, I read the NY Times since the late 70's), plus that was a local Long Island Gallery, where any local artist (not at all notable in the NY Art Scene) can get exhibited and mentioned in the supplement attachment. This can be debated, but you need to know the fact that Richard Genovese is a friend of Daniel Boyer and is getting free promotion on Wikipedia, courtesy of Boyer, see surrealist techniques and look at the artworks on display at that Wikipedia page.Classicjupiter2 05:47, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The NYT article says he was guest curator for an 80 artist exhibition. This is verification from a well regarded print source of visibility in the arts beyond the "garage band" or small personal clique scale. This, added to the over 900 non-Wikipedia hits for his name, are enough notability for me; others may have other standards. I can see no harm in keeping the article. As to your Boyer argument: If he is or isn't a friend of Boyer may or may not have something to do with why the article was started (I don't know if the anon who started the article was Boyer or not), it isn't directly relevent to determining the subject's notability. (To illustrate with a hypothetical example, even if a Wikipedia user who was nothing but a vandal was shown to be friends with an Oscar winning director or a national president, that wouldn't be a good reason to say we shouldn't have articles on the otherwise notable person.) -- Infrogmation 06:20, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I sincerely disagree, Infrogmation. Not really legit, due to the fact that the article in question was in a magazine supplement, Long Island Weekly section of New York Times. This reference listing is really misleading in regards to notability, though the NY Times does list practically everything in their archives. This "article", though it appeared in the NY Times archives online, it did appear in the attached magazine supplement, it did not appear in the significant ARTS section of NY Times (or am I wrong?, I read the NY Times since the late 70's), plus that was a local Long Island Gallery, where any local artist (not at all notable in the NY Art Scene) can get exhibited and mentioned in the supplement attachment. This can be debated, but you need to know the fact that Richard Genovese is a friend of Daniel Boyer and is getting free promotion on Wikipedia, courtesy of Boyer, see surrealist techniques and look at the artworks on display at that Wikipedia page.Classicjupiter2 05:47, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Infrogmation, I see your point. Thank you.Classicjupiter2 17:36, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- No vote, this reads like a resume but may be "notable". --GRider\talk 18:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, as before. Many attempts have been made to get this deleted; all have failed. Everyking 08:57, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Are you saying it was VfD'ed before? If so we should drag up that discussion.
- Keep. The VFD topic-of-the-week sems to have drifted from schools to surrealism - and I can see no reason for deleting either. Are we working our way through the alphabet? --Gene_poole 01:12, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, vanity. Radiant! 13:54, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Not an encyclopedia article. Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 14:06, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. Postdlf 18:02, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Valid article subject, invalid VfD nomination from sockpuppet. Notability is subjective. ~leif ☺ HELO 22:24, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
