Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rubén Torres Llorca
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 Keep Non-Admin Closure. Tiddly-Tom 07:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Rubén Torres Llorca
This is one of a batch of articles created by a WP:SPA to populate Category:Cuban contemporary artists that they created (the subject of a WP:COI/N that resulted in a bot removing 145 WP:LINKSPAM URLs from the articles ... it lacks any WP:RS attribution to WP:Verify the WP:BIO notability criteria, and a {{Prod}} was declined, so I have opened this AfD. —The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk · contribs) 20:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Regardless of how it got here, I have found a fair amount of info on this Cuban artist, including:
- http://www.miamiartexchange.com/studio_praxis/miami_art_artists/ruben_torres-llorca.html (interview)
- http://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/oralhistories/transcripts/torres98.htm 1998 Interview, Smithsonian Archives of American Art
- http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0715/p12s01-alar.html (smaller mention, but with photo)
- http://www.cubaartny.org/pages/artists/RubenTorresLlorca/work3.html
- http://www.cuba-avantgarde.com/artists/torres_llorca.php (showing work only)
- While I think the nominator did so in good faith, it wasn't hard to find good links on this artist and many are in English (he is Cuban, after all).
The fact that the article doesn't have these links is irreleventcitations now added, as the standard is verifiable not verified. There has been discussion on his talk page about the AFD, and I think the nom may be too concerned about who created the article, (which was a problem) but doesn't matter if there is no copyvio and the spam was removed. The artist is notable and this can be verified, which is the standard for inclusion. The article needs improving, not deletion. Pharmboy (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)- Comment: A link to a site that displays one of the artist's paintings is like an ISBN for an author's book ... it is not nearly the same thing as a review in The New York Times or some other WP:RS that demonstrates "has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." —72.75.72.63 (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I know, but there is no image of his work and not sure how fair use would apply in this particular instance. The link was provided solely to give visitors a quick link to some of his art (I did say 'showing work only'), not to establish notability. The other links establish notability fairly handily. Pharmboy (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. :-) —72.75.72.63 (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I know, but there is no image of his work and not sure how fair use would apply in this particular instance. The link was provided solely to give visitors a quick link to some of his art (I did say 'showing work only'), not to establish notability. The other links establish notability fairly handily. Pharmboy (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: A link to a site that displays one of the artist's paintings is like an ISBN for an author's book ... it is not nearly the same thing as a review in The New York Times or some other WP:RS that demonstrates "has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." —72.75.72.63 (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - I think these links demonstrate notability. matt91486 (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. This is one of the list of 145 artists that was discussed some time ago at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Ideally, people would come forward and volunteer to sift through that list to see which of the artists are notable. Since it is not easy to recruit people to do that study, these artists may wind up being presented as individual PRODs or AfDs. This man does appear notable, and his article should be kept. EdJohnston (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment You could fit everything I know about art, Cubans and Rubén in a thimble, yet I dug up these references in about 5 minutes. These were all first page Google hits. I wish the nominators would take the 5 minutes it takes to create an AFD and instead, just google the name first, and then add a single reference if found. If they don't find anything, fine, then you can say so in the nom itself. I'm not trying to rag the nom, but every editor is obligated to research ANY article before nominating it for AFD, this is the other half of "good faith". Pharmboy (talk) 12:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- VERY STRONG KEEP.. People need to do a little research before they nominiate for AFD's. This guy is notableCallelinea (talk) 04:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: I invite editors to investigate and either improve or delete the articles in this Cuban artists checklist ... if you decline or second a PROD, please update the checklist ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 02:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep for links posted above. Blueswan1967 (talk) 20:17, 5 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.
