| Revision as of 09:13, 17 January 2010 editTyrenius (talk | contribs)37,867 edits Rv. This is misleading - it was not in the original nom to which users responded. Put it later and date stamp it.← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:15, 17 January 2010 edit undoBongomatic (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers15,898 edits amended nominatoin textNext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| :{{la|Kongthin Pearlmich}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kongthin Pearlmich}}|2=AfD statistics}}) | :{{la|Kongthin Pearlmich}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kongthin Pearlmich}}|2=AfD statistics}}) | ||
| :({{findsources|Kongthin Pearlmich}}) | :({{findsources|Kongthin Pearlmich}}) | ||
| The subject of this article has not been verifiably demonstrated to exist, nor to create or sell any artworks—''ever''. The only sources relate to a late-2008 episode where—through a representative at a non-existent law firm—the subject is claimed to have offered a painting—that by his own estimation was hugely valuable—to a cathedral. Fails BLP1E and V. <sup><small><font color="green">]</font></small></sup><sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex;"><small><font color="blue">]</font></small></sub> 00:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC) | The subject of this article has not been verifiably demonstrated to exist, nor to create or sell any artworks—''ever''. The only sources relate to a late-2008 episode where—through a representative at a non-existent law firm—the subject is claimed to have offered a painting—that by his own estimation was hugely valuable—to a cathedral. Fails BLP1E and V. Speculation that he may have substantial and noted sales of his works in the future is simply ] ball-gazing. <sup><small><font color="green">]</font></small></sup><sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex;"><small><font color="blue">]</font></small></sub> 00:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| *Seems to notable for one event, which means ] applies, so '''delete''' ] <sub>]</sub> 10:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC) | *Seems to notable for one event, which means ] applies, so '''delete''' ] <sub>]</sub> 10:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| <!-- Template from Template:LVD --> | <!-- Template from Template:LVD --> | ||
Revision as of 09:15, 17 January 2010
Kongthin Pearlmich
- Kongthin Pearlmich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject of this article has not been verifiably demonstrated to exist, nor to create or sell any artworks—ever. The only sources relate to a late-2008 episode where—through a representative at a non-existent law firm—the subject is claimed to have offered a painting—that by his own estimation was hugely valuable—to a cathedral. Fails BLP1E and V. Speculation that he may have substantial and noted sales of his works in the future is simply WP:CRYSTAL ball-gazing. matic 00:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Seems to notable for one event, which means WP:BLP1E applies, so delete ~DC Talk To Me 10:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. No source has been provided by the nominee to substantiate the allegation that it is a 'hoax'. The article references a Telegraph article amongst others, generally a good source. The fact is that publicity shy artists exist, but that doesn't mean they are non-noteworthy. The fact that he was first reported about in connection with one big event, is neither here nor there. The article mentions his body of work. A look at his (admittedly eccentric) website shows a large body of work (presumably owned by private collectors - something which again doesn't mean he is not notable). Malick78 (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, and WP:BLP1E specifically says: "if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them". There is no reason to think he is likely to remain low-profile. He has, as I said, a large body of work and sells for high prices. Malick78 (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Ty 10:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The artist has had work displayed in two historic venues, and has gained national media attention for this, as well as the unusual, not to mention questionable, circumstances in evidence. As there is a substantial body of work displayed on the artist's web site, there is every likelihood that there will be further exposure for it, i.e. the person is quite probably not "likely to remain, a low-profile individual." BLP1E was conceived for when an otherwise unknown member of the public became caught up in an unusual occurrence, not when a person gained attention intentionally with regard to their profession. WP:BAND allows an artist who "has had a single or album on any country's national music chart" or who "has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network." WP:ATHLETE allows those "who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport." The article is fully compliant with core wikipedia policies of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. It certainly does not fail the latter, as the sources are highly reputable. Ty 07:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)