| Revision as of 07:30, 8 May 2007 editMER-C (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators250,740 editsm Reverted to revision 129178410 by Eep².← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:47, 8 May 2007 edit undoRadiant! (talk | contribs)36,918 editsmNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| ::I've left a note on his userpage indicating that his name implies a close connection with the artist, leading some editors to assume he is the artist... I thought that was hedging it enough.] 16:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | ::I've left a note on his userpage indicating that his name implies a close connection with the artist, leading some editors to assume he is the artist... I thought that was hedging it enough.] 16:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Weak 'Keep'''' on the basis of the museums. True references and reviews would of course help. ''']''' 22:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | *'''Weak 'Keep'''' on the basis of the museums. True references and reviews would of course help. ''']''' 22:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| * |
*'''Keep''': His exhibitions warrant notability and, if so many ] and, oh yes, even frickin' ] (yes, dog mushers!) can have wikipedia pages, so can this guy--and ]. <]> -] 17:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 07:47, 8 May 2007
Miguel Condé
Unsourced autobiography which doesn't make a case for meeting WP:BIO (under "creative professionals"). Contested prod. MER-C 02:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Yes, this guy shouldn't have written his own article entry. But although inline citations aren't provided the external links to galleries and exhibitions confirm the content and show that he has exhibited in major shows. I think he meets WP:BIO, he just needs to be warned (which I've done) and the article stub tagged then left for development.Madmedea 15:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Was the user who wrote this, User:MiguelConde.info, the artist himself or did you just infer that? I don't see edits by this user for any other articles, registering for the sole purpose of making a dozen or two edits is just as valid as unregistered users editing. This could have been a fan or someone who doesn't regularly edit. I just don't see where the user ever said that he is Miguel Conde. theanphibian 16:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've left a note on his userpage indicating that his name implies a close connection with the artist, leading some editors to assume he is the artist... I thought that was hedging it enough.Madmedea 16:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak 'Keep' on the basis of the museums. True references and reviews would of course help. DGG 22:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: His exhibitions warrant notability and, if so many cricketers and, oh yes, even frickin' dog mushers (yes, dog mushers!) can have wikipedia pages, so can this guy--and conspiracy theorists. <eyeroll> -Eep² 17:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)