Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zander Vaubel

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. - Mailer Diablo 14:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zander Vaubel

Fails WP:BIO, as the subject is not notable, even though the facts in the article may be verifiable. Even the references assert that this invidual was not well known, as one article states ("No one knew him," said Kate Marantz, 22). Delete. —Brim 03:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - "No one knew him" from the New York Daily News article was a reference to the fact that no one at that particular party knew who he was. Aghost 00:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Wikipedia:Notability (people) is not Wikipedia guideline policy. Even so, under the Alternative tests heading it lists Verifiability, which states: "Can all information in the article be independently verified now? (some say) 10 years from now?" The answer to both is yes. The subject is notable because it is verifiable. It was already judged for its notability when it was originally reported in credible well-known news sources like The New York Times and New York Newsday. The point of Wikipedia is to be NPOV and chronicle the facts from sources like those; why should we place subjective restrictions on things that are already established as notable? If so, there is a slippery slope, and established information that some editors don't like can be censored for being "not notable enough?" Wikipedia is not censored for any reason. --Howrealisreal 03:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree that the information is verifiable but I don't see that the subject passes WP:BIO. GassyGuy 04:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - WP:BIO states: "Failure to meet [this] criteria does not mean that a subject must not be included". --Howrealisreal 04:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
      • True, but WP:BIO is a commonly cited guideline on WP that establishes a pretty low threshold for notability as it is, and this subject still fails. So I'm citing the failure of the guideline as justification for why I believe this article ought to be deleted. It's fairly common practice. Obviously failure isn't an automatic deletion, or else there'd be no need to get community consensus - somebody would have just deleted it already. GassyGuy 05:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Disclaimer: Based on your questions about the WP:BIO guideline, I'd assumed you were a new-ish editor, which is why I tried to explain it as I did. I now see I was terribly wrong and apologize for bringing it to a level that's very basic and that explains things you likely already know. GassyGuy 05:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Verifiability and Notability are related but not identical concepts. We can verify that this guy lived (which is not a notable fact) that he died (which is not notable either) and how he died (unusual, but not really notable). We can also verify that he was on his high school debate team (not notable again, even if he did well) and that he created some pieces of art (also not notable, even if they were shown publically). What is left about this guys life that makes him notable in any way? --Jayron32 05:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not a memorial - even for someone I'd consider nominating for a Darwin Award. Resolute 05:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO, and I have serious doubts that any of this information will be verifiable ten years from now. Generally, Wikipedia does not permit articles on people who are less notable than the average college professor; Vaubel fails that test. --Hyperbole 05:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like he didn't quite make the jump to notability ... or that other roof. Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Dhartung | Talk 05:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. If he makes the cut, it's because of his career as an artist; and it appears that his art was not all that well known at the time of his unfortunate death. The only mentioned exhibition was as a part of a student exhibition at his university. If further evidence that his art was well known can be mustered, I'd change my mind. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dhartung. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and he has zero notability. --Aaron 15:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --rogerd 16:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - newspaper refs are all very well but just because you died a singularly bizarre death doesn't mean you should have a Wikipedia article if you didn't do anything in life. Moreschi 19:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Smerdis. I'd say keep if it could be verified he was notable for his art.--Cúchullain t/c 19:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep regardless of the criteria for being included on this site, it was very helpful to find this entry on wikipedia. If this does get deleted, perhaps we can try again when a book or Zander's work is published. I feel like all the people apposed to this entry are being Nazis, this is not a book, its not like you’re going to run out of space on the internet by including this entry, letting Zander Vaubel be in the wiki would make hundreds of people happy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.107.99.191 (talk • contribs) .
    • Reply Please refrain from personal attacks like calling people Nazi's. You are correct; WikiPedia is not paper but WikiPedia is also not a memorial. The policy is clear, and I quote incase you'd rather not look yourself: "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered." I am not doubting people loved this guy. I am not doubting he will be missed. I am not doubting that friends of him would appreciate reading an article about him here. But WikiPedia has clear-cut objective standards by which a potential subject is judged. They can be found at WP:NN, WP:V, and WP:BIO. Read these and then IMPROVE THE ARTICLE so that it meets these standards. Simply complaining that the article should be kept does not good. If it can be brought up to standard, then do so. It will be kept. If the article cannot be brought up to standard, it will be deleted. --Jayron32 19:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The guy was a notable Brooklyn artisan, if there is any doubt about that you should look up the success of the company he has been an integral part of: Roux Roux. It is an international jewelery business with clients all over the world. Quite notable for a small, Brooklyn operation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fowl345 (talk • contribs) .
    • reply Ok, then provide references that establish notability, and put those in the article. If it checks out, I would be willing to change my vote. As the article stands now, it is entirely non-notable. --Jayron32 19:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep' Vaubel was on the board of the Young Associates of the Chelsea Art Museum. He was asked to found this program because he was such an influential person, which speaks to his notability. I think it is also relevant to note that news of his death was being emailed throughout schools in New York soon after it had occured, including schools that he did not attend. I think the death of a university professor would elicit a similar response. Vaubel was notable for his striking art, his work for the Chelsea Art Museum, and the vast influence he had on people throughout New York. I was not aware that the Wikipedia spent time deciding who is notable and who is not, but if that is the case than Zander Vaubel certainly qualifies as notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.107.104.201 (talk • contribs) 16:07, October 17, 2006 (UTC)
    • reply Ok, IF such statements are verifiable, then edit the article, and put REFERENCES in where we can find that such things are true. These assertions MAY make him more notable, but we won't know without third-party references. If you provide those references, I may be willing to change my vote. Alsoplease remember to sign your posts --Jayron32 20:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I went ahead and added this referenced information about the YA. Thank you for helping me establish notability. --Howrealisreal 20:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
        • reply Checked out the new link. OK. We can verify that he held this post. Still, it doesn't get to the heart of his notability. Are there reviews of his work? Do others cite him as an expert in his field? That's the sort of thing that makes one notable. Getting better, but still not enough yet to change my vote. A review in the mainstream art press would be nice. Citations in anthologies or the like would be even better. Examples of widespread use of his work beyond a single museum showing would be good too. --Jayron32 04:54, 18 October 2006 (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.