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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prod tag was removed without comment. Does not meet WP:BIO notability criteria (no reliable sources) OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't know how you determine who is a notable fauvism artist, but I would think that one would have to generate more than 12 google hits outside Wikipedia and mirrors. Fan-1967 04:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Jamie and Fan-1967,

  I understand your concern but this artist is fairly new in the art world and only one book ( Maitres & Epigones) has information on her so far. As I mentionned on your talk page, I am putting the results of my Phd thesis research as I find them, so unfortunately yes, not everything is there yet.

  I will be writting this thesis for the next year, so you should have more sources as I find the answers. What would you need in order to remove this tag?

  Thank you

  Henri — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Henri Monet (talk • contribs) 2006-11-01 04:46:27

  • Wikipedia is not a publisher of primary research, including primary research about artists. Per our Wikipedia:No original research policy, everything in Wikipedia must have been through a processs of fact checking, peer review, publication, and acceptance into the general corpus of human knowledge. This process occurs outside of Wikipedia. You've come to Wikipedia for the wrong reasons. Wikipedia does not exist to be the first to document the previously undocumented. For an article on this person to be had, we need cited sources to demonstrate that the Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies are satisfied. Uncle G 11:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read your response as, basically, confirmation of my opinion above. You say "fairly new in the art world" and I would read that as "not yet Notable. Part of our notability definition is: "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." It does not appear this artist has yet achieved that. Fan-1967 15:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Henri, one obscure artbook means the artist is not notable enough for Wikipedia. You need to check the guidelines on notability and verifiability. --Steve 05:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ¿ςפקιДИτς! ☺ ☻ 06:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --164.107.92.120 16:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn per nom and Fan-1967. -- Ektar 16:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 17:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO. Cbrown1023 21:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Good day dear friends.

  My name is Sam Aberg, art historian and international art critic, servant of arts for the last 30 years. I am also author of Maîtres & Epigones, a book that describes today's famous canadian painters. Book that has been distributed at 5000 copies across Canada, Europe and the USA. It is sad to see that some wikipedians may have opinions about artists with just a single Google search, while it takes professionnals months before having a final verdict.

  I do agree that Wikipedia must have rules to make sure its content meets notability and verific criterias, it is the base of any public encyclopedia. However, I believe it is a bit early to take decision before consulting experts in the art field.

  Thank you for your time

  Sam Aberg 22:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • We don't need to consult experts in the field. We just need pointers to where these experts have published books, articles, and studies of this person, as required by our Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. What the experts in the field are for is writing those books, articles, and studies in the first place — i.e. for producing secondary sources. An encyclopaedia is a tertiary source. The Google searches are ways to locate the books, articles, and studies in the cases where no citations are provided in the article. Uncle G 16:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Maybe we can delay the vote for, say 1 week, to let these people the time to find some more sources on Maryse Carol? On the current state of the article, it should be deleted though. Unfortunately we really need to have verifiable contents, especially when it comes to living people. -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The question is whether this artist is already well known in her field, in which case more than one book, and citations to major art journals, lists of major museums where she has been exhibited, etc. can be provided. If these sources can't provided, there's nothing to verify the claim that she is notable. I would agree to give the article's supporters extra time to add references. Andrew Levine 23:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment(edit conflict) If claim to notability can be established in the future the article can be recreated at that time. Please note: this is not a judgement in any way on the artist's quality. This is someone who has generated practically no press notice at all anywhere. Being noticed by one art critic and one author may be a judgement on her quality, but it does not make her notable. Fan-1967 23:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless we get book verification. However, Google News Archive has nothing [1] nor does Google Books. [2] Google Scholar comes up empty. [3]Capitalistroadster 06:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: the Sam Aberg book is rather hard to judge as well, from its 5 other Google hits[4], which only announce it (or give a 404 error). Where is it available? Have the 5000 copies been sold, or just distributed? Has it been reviewed independently? For know, we have no way to know if it is a serious independent critical work, or some promo for young artists, or something else... Fram 22:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As I was searching for information about Maryse Casol after seeing her exhibition that took place today downtown Montreal, I fell on this website. Guys, what is wrong with you? Why are you so eager to see this artist deleted? I have the impression everyone gets on this article and acts as if they were at the trial of Socrates: Kill! Kill! Kill! She is not famous enough for us, kill! Kill! Kill!

I know nothing about art, but one thing is for sure; EVERYONE thought her works were great today. Anyhow, I'm not coming back on your website, you have no more credibility to my eyes. --Lisa Dunkin 23:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment And Oh, I forget. It's really easy to hide behind a keyboard and write all you want. I challenge anyone to be bold enough to call directly Maryse to ask her what you want to know: <<PHONE NUMBER REMOVED>>

Love,Lisa --Lisa Dunkin 23:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I have removed the phone number for privacy reasons. Andrew Levine 06:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Though I take exception to this piece of editing, I admire the energy put into the promotion of Ms Casol and her work. Dates provided in the article lead me to assume that Ms Casol has only been exhibiting her work publicly for two years. I suggest that it may be premature to include an article at this point in her career. I will add that I find it odd that, inclusion in M. Aberg's book aside, there appears to be no other information on the painter available in print form. I refer here not only to art magazines, but to the four Montreal daily newspapers. One final observation: the article lifts copywritten material from the artist's website [5]. As such it runs contrary to Wikipedia's WP:NPS guideline and is a violation of WP:C. Victoriagirl 04:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment

Dear friends,

I have read the totality of this discussion, and must thank you all for taking the time to write very good arguments. You see, I believe everyone has a purpose in this world. I was lucky to get the gift to make people happy threw my art. Now, if your purpose is to destroy the work of a few trying to build something positive, I respect that. You know, beeing on Wikipedia or not, won't change anything to me; I will still continue painting, and I will still bring hope to people.

Therefore, you can delete this article if you want.

I wish you all the best in your careers, goals or projects. Just remember that you too one day will need the help from others. That day, God will remember.

Sincerely,

Maryse Casol --Maryse Casol 06:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT To all the supporters and especially Maryse, do not take this issue personally. Because WP is open to all to edit, it has a constant credibility problem and so there are rules to try to keep at least a reasonable standard. Think about it if everyone decided to add bios on wp, it would not be a serious place. Maryse is a new artist, perhaps the article is a little premature given the WP standards. Copy the code aside so that it is not wasted editing, and perhaps in the near future, the existence of the article (if it gets deleted) will be non-disputable. --Shuki 20:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per G11 - blatant copyright violation. Ohconfucius 13:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please Delete ASAP To gain notability as a visual artist, there should be critical discourse in recognized journal and periodicals, an extensive exhibition history, or evidence of a signifigant contribution to the discipline. There is no evidence of any of the above. Wikipedia shouldn't be a free-for-all where anybody with the time can create an entry. I would ask you if you think your artistic contributions should entitle you to be in Brittanica. If not there, why here. And to whomever put Maryse in the main wiki article for Painting, under the history of contemporary painting, should be ashamed. It has been deleted--Thamiel

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.