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 Speedy keep seeing as even the nominator wants the article kept. Please don't nom articles unless you think they should be deleted. Ty 22:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vittorio Fiorucci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Well, I was going to bed, and can't be bothered to deal with this inanity, so I'm listing this here to appease Llamabr (talk · contribs), who insist on slapping CSD templates on it, until I can make it into a better article. Circeus (talk) 04:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Several items at Google Books describe him as "renowned" or "internationally known", which is enough to satisfy me. Certainly not a CSD candidate. Zagalejo^^^ 05:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The current article's a perfectly acceptable stub, and enough mentions in reliable sources exist to demonstrate notability: see [1], [2], [3], in addition to the Google Books link above. Scog (talk) 05:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He passes notability with this search--more than 1,900 hits on him here The sources are museum sites, galleries, not just unreliable blogs. Artene50 (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Scog --  Darth Mike  _{(Talk • Contribs)} 08:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly shows notability. I've had to undo some of Llamabr's taggings today. Howdoyouturnthison (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems notable as far as I can tell from searches. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• comment It does need a lot of work though to go beyond stub status. I might try to help out if I find some time today. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.