- 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. Vanamonde ( Talk) 20:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Patxi Xabier Lezama Perier
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Patxi Xabier Lezama Perier ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST fail. Having looked at many artist biographies, I noticed that this one lacks mention of significant exhibitions or activities. There is a long, tortuous discussion of his notability on the talk page; in my experience notable artists do not usually require such a long discussion, as their accomplishments are visible and easily demonstrated. The independent, in-depth sources that make notability assessments easy are absent here. The sources I saw in a search were self-published or published in sketchy publications like "Bloom Magazine".
An image search for his name is interesting, as it shows most of images returned are associated with wiki-type sites; I did not see any images linked to reviews or significant galleries or museums. In short, this looks like a vanity or promotion-driven page for an artist who does not meet our notability standard. Possibly ( talk) 22:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Possibly ( talk) 22:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Possibly ( talk) 22:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Possibly ( talk) 22:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - I have to agree that there is no evidence the artist is notable. It seems to be a promo-only effort, as the article has been translated into 44 different languages which looks like a possible orchestrated effort involving undisclosed COI or UPE. Because I was part of the discussion, I thouroughly gave the article and its sourcing (and suggested sourcing on Talk) a deep analysis, but everything is low-quality, user-submitted, self-published or PR-esque trivia. There just does not seem to be any SIGCOV out there nor a record of exhibitions, reviews, and the usual coverage for a contemporary artist. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ARTIST and WP:NAUTHOR. Netherzone ( talk) 23:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- @
Netherzone: I double-checked that stat on other language wikis and was stunned to see it is correct. Here's a
link to the use of his portrait cross-wiki. I have no doubt about coordinated promotion now.
Possibly (
talk) 04:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- @
Possibly: I'd never heard of him until a couple weeks ago when one of the articles I watch was spammed with copyvio promo about him. Then a different editor out of the blue asked me to "help" them with his article.
Netherzone (
talk) 04:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Netherzone, there are more than a dozen references recently added to Talk that you haven't even bothered to look at and check. The sources were published in international newspapers in the Basque Country and in the Basque Government. Here are mentioned important exhibitions or activities, see here [
[1]]Please note that this is a guide and not a rule; there may be exceptions. Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but they can still stand out for their academic work. It is very difficult to establish clear requirements in terms of quantity / quality of publications.
WP: NBIO or
WP: NPROF have criteria that recognize that an author is notable for having a large recognized body of works, for example in Viaf's authority check. You haven't even checked the latest Talk references. It appears that the author meets the notability and reference guidelines in 44 languages.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sorginak (
talk •
contribs) 7:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sorginak, I'm sorry to disappoint, but I'm not your private secretary that you can order around. I'm currently occupied with creating content elsewhere on the encyclopedia. Please tell us what your connection is to the subject of the article. That will help us to guide you and the discussion. Thank you. Netherzone ( talk) 15:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Netherzone, there are more than a dozen references recently added to Talk that you haven't even bothered to look at and check. The sources were published in international newspapers in the Basque Country and in the Basque Government. Here are mentioned important exhibitions or activities, see here [
[1]]Please note that this is a guide and not a rule; there may be exceptions. Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but they can still stand out for their academic work. It is very difficult to establish clear requirements in terms of quantity / quality of publications.
WP: NBIO or
WP: NPROF have criteria that recognize that an author is notable for having a large recognized body of works, for example in Viaf's authority check. You haven't even checked the latest Talk references. It appears that the author meets the notability and reference guidelines in 44 languages.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sorginak (
talk •
contribs) 7:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- @
Possibly: I'd never heard of him until a couple weeks ago when one of the articles I watch was spammed with copyvio promo about him. Then a different editor out of the blue asked me to "help" them with his article.
Netherzone (
talk) 04:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- @
Netherzone: I double-checked that stat on other language wikis and was stunned to see it is correct. Here's a
link to the use of his portrait cross-wiki. I have no doubt about coordinated promotion now.
Possibly (
talk) 04:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
*Strong Keep The problem isn't the fact that the artist is obscure, it is the simple fact that the sources are in the Basque language and are difficult to determine whether they are sufficient quality for the article. There is certainly sufficient coverage to satisfy
WP:SIGCOV, proving that he is a genuine artist who passes
WP:NARTIST. There wouldn't be so many mentions of him, since the graph was updated, if that wasn't the case. I think the Basque newspaper coverage in
Deia combined the some references from the artistic site would be sufficient for the article as stands.
scope_creep
Talk 16:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- @ Scope creep: I'm a little perplexed by your !vote. Does that mean you read Basque, and/or have verified some of the claimed sources? If he's a genuine artist who passes NARTIST, where are the sources, reviews, exhibitions, museum collections, evidence of solo shows and so on? Possibly ( talk) 16:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- I found
the Deia article, which is about his self-published book. The weirdest thing about the publication linked is that every article in it has the byline "Elixane Castresana" or "E. Castresana." It's pretty clear that it is paid editorial content.
Possibly (
talk) 18:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- @ Scope creep: and @ Possibly: I translated all the sources listed (in the article and article talk) from either Basque or Spanish. I'm convinced the Deia "article" is just a modified press release as the wording is almost identical to some of the other sources. This seems like the work of a PR firm or self-promotion. That coupled with the fact that it's being canvassed across the world on 44 different international-language Wikipedias, mostly from IP's that geolocate to his locale near Bilbao doesn't help the matter. And the fact that the photo of the artist was uploaded as the "own work" of the editor who keeps insisting on the artist's importance yet refuses to answer how they are connected. Nor does the other photo of a sculpture Photoshopped onto several backgrounds uploaded by the same editor as "their work" help their case. I am very sorry if this sounds harsh, but all seems very fishy. Netherzone ( talk) 18:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete The majority of sources merely list a work of art by the artist and the few independent reviews (e.g., Bloom) are fluff pieces. Clearly, the artist's work lacks reviews by established art critics, I don't see anything even in Spanish language newspapers like El Pais. Clearly not notable.-- RegentsPark ( comment) 16:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Returning to the subject at hand, I have just found another secondary source for a book written by Laura Cremonini, in which the author is mentioned along with Francisco de Goya, see here:[ [2]]. Here is a list of Notability sources:[ [3]],[ [4]], [ [5]], [ [6]], [ [7]], [ [8]]. The reference Luz Cultural is signed by Carlos J. Rascón, collaborator in various anthologies. With experience in communication and digital journalism, he is currently director and content editor of the digital magazine Luz Cultural since its inception in 2013. A significant, deep and high-quality coverage in reliable sources. [ [9]], [ [10]]. I do not think there are enough reasons to place this for deletion, to be honest, it seems that they have it for this particular page for some reason, it seems that because of confronting an editor, but that is not a reason to cut off his head and much less for delete the article. Sure, it is a stub, but it is reasonably well referenced, the type is notable within the Basque Country ... what is the problem? There are articles with much worse references. Netherzone, your attitude leaves much to be desired, of course you are not anyone's secretary, but you only checked three references, I discredit the sources with seems to be and seems to be and it was shown that you only told lies, there was no link to buy the book or They gave medals to all and it seems that it bothered you to see and verify that what you said was a lie, it seems that your hatred is what moves you and the truth offends you. Confronting editors is no reason to discredit sources and references.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorginak ( talk • contribs)
- Delete The sourcing is not significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. We have
Bloom Magazine, which Wikipedia cites just once, for this article. An unattributed, over-the-top promo piece by a magazine that is operated by a marketing firm, lncreatividad.
USA art news isn't much better. Most articles appear to have been written by "Helen".
Issuu is a self-publishing platform.
[11] doesn't really say what the article claims it says. In fact it says almost nothing: " Espacios interiores Fran y Patxi Lezama Perier" is all.
[12] is blog.
Vexations (
talk) 13:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- And hit it with bloom magazine. Because you don't look at the Luza Cultural magazine. The reference Luz Cultural is signed by Carlos J. Rascón, collaborator in various anthologies. With experience in communication and digital journalism, he is currently director and content editor of the digital magazine Luz Cultural. Why don't you look at the references of the Basque newspapers Deia and the Basque government and the list of sources 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 those references are the ones that are worth and not the ones that are in the article Of those ten references nobody says anything? You have to be vague not to check them and include them in the article. Scope_creep checked those of the Deia international newspaper and agrees that they are valid and there are eight more references that no one looks at. A little serious please.--
Sorginak (
talk) 14:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- I mentioned that I think Luz Cultural is a blog. No other sources are used in the article. I didn't mention this earlier, but I also do not see a notable career or body of work that would come close to meeting our notability requirements for artists, WP:NARTIST. No work in significant collections, no museum exhibits and no monographs, not even representation by a reputable gallery. The coverage that we do have is not a critical assessment of a body of work, but hype. The repetition of certain phrases or expressions in the sources is suspicious: "La retina de cada uno guarda en la memoria las imágenes de las obras de arte, recordando incluso sentimientos ligados a ellas." in one source, "La retina de cada un guarda a la memòria les imatges de les obres d’art, recordant fins i tot sentiments lligats a elles", in the next. That's a slightly reworded press release, not independent coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexations ( talk • contribs) 15:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- And hit it with bloom magazine. Because you don't look at the Luza Cultural magazine. The reference Luz Cultural is signed by Carlos J. Rascón, collaborator in various anthologies. With experience in communication and digital journalism, he is currently director and content editor of the digital magazine Luz Cultural. Why don't you look at the references of the Basque newspapers Deia and the Basque government and the list of sources 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 those references are the ones that are worth and not the ones that are in the article Of those ten references nobody says anything? You have to be vague not to check them and include them in the article. Scope_creep checked those of the Deia international newspaper and agrees that they are valid and there are eight more references that no one looks at. A little serious please.--
Sorginak (
talk) 14:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete I only really do one of these reversals every 1000 Afd's and it is this. The analysis above is sufficiently comprehensive and deep to elicit a change of venue. I can't see anyway it can be kept. scope_creep Talk 17:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Elixane Castresana is the journalist who covers the Las Encartaciones area, Luz Cultural is not a blog, it is a cultural Art website is signed by Carlos J. Rascón, collaborator in various anthologies. With experience in communication and digital journalism, he is currently director and content editor of the digital magazine Luz Cultural since its inception in 2013. Coolturamagazine is a Contemporary Art website, Bonart is a magazine of the collector Anna Maria Campos and of the art critic and cultural manager Ricard Planas, Arte Historia is an Art History website, SNAC is a discovery service for individuals, families and organizations found within the archive collections of cultural heritage institutions, see here [
[13]] — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sorginak (
talk •
contribs) 18:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Luz Cultural has a notice on the page that is cited that says: "Suscríbete al blog por correo electrónico". In the footer it says: "Luz Cultural no se hace responsable de las opiniones vertidas en noticias, artículos de opinión, imágenes, vídeos, comentarios sobre las mismas o textos de usuarios y visitantes de esta página web." It is a blog with no editorial oversight. That's not my assumption, it says so itself. Vexations ( talk) 12:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Netherzone has done a thorough examination - indeed there's enough proof of COI and ADVERT. Talking about the notability, I believe the subject fails the guidelines. The sources provided can't really be checked for reliability and independence as they are too small. The information provided is the same almost everywhere even with the same wording. Less Unless ( talk) 04:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- An exhaustive examination is the one that says who is the journalist and corresponding editors of the publications. Possibly, it seems to be and I think, they are just unfounded assumptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorginak ( talk • contribs) 09:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Please note that this is a guide and not a rule; there may be exceptions. Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but they can still stand out for their academic work. It is very difficult to establish clear requirements in terms of quantity / quality of publications. WP: NBIO or WP: NPROF have criteria that recognize that an author is notable for having a large recognized body of works in national libraries of the world and international universities in Viaf's authority control. Individuals are presumed to be remarkable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are trustworthy, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the topic. If the depth of coverage in a given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources can be combined to demonstrate visibility. People who meet the basic criteria can be considered remarkable without meeting the additional criteria. A common axiom is that "AFD is not cleanliness." Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles should not be removed because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet. Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. If there is good and accessible content in the article, it should be preserved, developed and improved, not removed. Wikipedia's policy of trying to correct problems in articles by editing improvements, expanding, and adding trusted sources, found in Try to fix problems, is often more appropriate than removing articles entirely. Reasons for withholding content. It can be frustrating for a reader to come to Wikipedia for information and discover that the relevant article existed at one point, but has been removed [ [14]] . This can put off both readers and Wikipedia authorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorginak ( talk • contribs) 11:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- @
Sorginak: you need to
WP:sign your posts, as instructed many times. Second, you need to learn how to
WP:indent them properly. Third, everyone knows what your position is here, and you are close to
WP:Bludgeoning the discussion, which you have already been warned not to do. Pasting long sections of Wikipedia guidelines into AfD dicussions is not helpful, because the editors above already know these guidelines quite well.
Possibly (
talk) 19:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- First, I am not an editor, I only look for sources and references. Second, this article got Scope-creep out of her, so I'm a little perplexed by her vote when she was the very person who pulled the article. Third, it seems that the previous editors do NOT know these guidelines quite well and you probably don't know them either when you edit the "Allan & Suzi" article that the administrators remove you for not following those guidelines that you claim to know.
- @
Sorginak: you need to
WP:sign your posts, as instructed many times. Second, you need to learn how to
WP:indent them properly. Third, everyone knows what your position is here, and you are close to
WP:Bludgeoning the discussion, which you have already been warned not to do. Pasting long sections of Wikipedia guidelines into AfD dicussions is not helpful, because the editors above already know these guidelines quite well.
Possibly (
talk) 19:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Reasons for withholding content.
- It can be frustrating for a reader to come to English Wikipedia in search of information and discover that the relevant article existed at one point in time, but has been deleted. This can put off both readers and Wikipedia authorship. Removing this article from English Wikipedia would seriously damage Wikipedia authorship. This article is taken as a reference and permanent link to sites and institutions as important as the Library of Congress of the United States or the SNAC service, service for the discovery of authors found within the archive collections of cultural heritage institutions where their Sponsors are The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, Institute for Museum and Library Services National Endowment for the Humanities, and its Hosts National Archives and Records Administration of the University of Virginia Library.
- It seems that this is a war of editors, who fight among themselves to show who is the one who best complies with the rules, to the detriment of Wikipedia without taking into account that this is a guide and not a rule and that there may be exceptions and it is Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but they can still stand out for their academic work. If the depth of coverage at a given source is not substantial, several independent sources can be combined to demonstrate visibility. People who meet the basic criteria can be considered remarkable without meeting the additional criteria. A common axiom is that "AFD is not cleanliness." Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles should not be removed because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet. Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. If there is good and accessible content in the article, it should be preserved, developed and improved, not removed. Wikipedia's policy of trying to correct problems in articles by editing improvements, expanding, and adding trusted sources, found in Try to fix problems, is often more appropriate than removing articles entirely. --
Sorginak (
talk) 12:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- @
Sorginak: sigh.
Possibly (
talk) 15:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- @
Sorginak: could you kindly tell us a little more about your photos of the artist and his work? I just saw that
this one has been added to 60 articles globally across many different languages of Wikipedia. Thank you.
Netherzone (
talk) 16:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not your private secretary you can order around. I am currently busy looking for sources and references for other articles. It is necessary to remind you Netherzone, that I did not say to "help" me, you put the reference tag in the article and after searching and finding more than a dozen references you did not even bother to look and verify those sources. The sources were published in international newspapers of the Basque Country and the Basque Government. According to Wikipedia rules, if you put the "reference" tag, it is you who have to check them and remove the tag when someone adds the sources and references they request. The tricky questions from now on ask Scope_creep which is who took the article and by the way, I don't care if they delete the article. The wikipedia in English with editors like you or Scope_creep who take out and edit articles and then delete them, loses credibility. It is incoherent. You are not trying to correct the problems in the articles by editing improvements, expanding and adding reliable sources, which is in Try to solve problems like other editors, you are looking for problems where there are none, playing detectives swallowing the truth, going as far as lying telling that the references lead to the book link to buy it. My intention was to help and not to hinder like you.
- If the image was added to 60 articles worldwide in many different languages of Wikipedia and was accepted by each and every one of the editors, administrators of those countries it will be because they all consider it important, otherwise it would have been deleted and rejected. If you want to play detectives, Wikipedia is not the right place.-- Sorginak ( talk) 18:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- @
Sorginak: could you kindly tell us a little more about your photos of the artist and his work? I just saw that
this one has been added to 60 articles globally across many different languages of Wikipedia. Thank you.
Netherzone (
talk) 16:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- @
Sorginak: sigh.
Possibly (
talk) 15:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- It seems that this is a war of editors, who fight among themselves to show who is the one who best complies with the rules, to the detriment of Wikipedia without taking into account that this is a guide and not a rule and that there may be exceptions and it is Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but they can still stand out for their academic work. If the depth of coverage at a given source is not substantial, several independent sources can be combined to demonstrate visibility. People who meet the basic criteria can be considered remarkable without meeting the additional criteria. A common axiom is that "AFD is not cleanliness." Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles should not be removed because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet. Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. If there is good and accessible content in the article, it should be preserved, developed and improved, not removed. Wikipedia's policy of trying to correct problems in articles by editing improvements, expanding, and adding trusted sources, found in Try to fix problems, is often more appropriate than removing articles entirely. --
Sorginak (
talk) 12:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
If the artist is recognized remarkable in more than 45 articles worldwide in many different languages of Wikipedia and was accepted by each and every one of the editors, administrators of those countries it will be because everyone considers him remarkable, otherwise it would have been deleted and rejected.
Stop childish games.-- Sorginak ( talk) 21:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment given that this article was created on over 40 wikis, if this is deleted it should be WP:SALTed too. Possibly ( talk) 20:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC).... and all this for posting a photo.-- Sorginak ( talk) 18:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
off-topic
|
|---|
The next thing you can do is another ten thousand articles by American Indian artists saying they have their work in the National Museum of the American Indians.-- Sorginak ( talk) 17:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a comment. Just as you can make an individual item for each Inuit who has an object in the Inuit museum, so you can make an individual item for each American Indian who has an object in the American Indian museum. Offensive is attacking with assumptions, misinterpretations, and unfounded conclusions towards my person when I have NOT written any article. Abuse of power is gathering a small group of publisher friends to attack me without having published anything. It is offensive to lie like you said the book was for sale. Ridiculous is threatening to remove the article and remove the photos and hypocritical is asking others what you do not do.-- Sorginak ( talk) 18:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC) ... and all this for posting a photo.-- Sorginak ( talk) 18:19, 13 January 2021 (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.