Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adamo Macri

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Roodhouse1 (talk | contribs) at 21:29, 3 August 2008 (→‎Adamo Macri). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Adamo Macri

Adamo Macri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

An artist working on a project for which he's made a bizarre choice of "important contributors to the treasury of culture". His article, largely by the SPA User:Macri (contributions), is sourced to his website, his blog, and an interview in somebody else's blog. The copyright stuff here suggests that Curric89 is Macri. Prod added, prod seconded, prod removed. Not verifiable. -- Hoary (talk) 05:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curric89 is a close affiliate and considered a trusting person with accurate information on Adamo Macri. Hoary: Your comment on the contributors to the Antipasto project: To my knowledge: the list he created involves a range of artists in different fields. All having contributed to society. The list is varied and devised as a Warhol approach to choosing celebrities. Meaning, just about anyone past fifteen minutes of fame. The second requirement: Macri simply likes what they do. There isn't anything bizarre, his approach was designed specifically with the nature of the project.

All web material will inevitably be sourced to-from his "blog" because a "news blog" is kept to archive and manage the content. It's where people go to get the latest on him. Your comment: "interview in somebody else's blog". The internet has changed the way we receive or access news, whether you acknowledge and validate this fact or not. Many blogs have taken precedence as major sources. Many of which are being transformed into radio and television shows. Claudio Parentela has hosted countless interviews with international artists through the many blogs he manages. As a journalist, he has contributed to many webzines and art publications.

Other comment: There is nothing suggestive about the copyright information. It clearly states the source. From Adamo Macri Studio and usage, which is public.

As a final note: You should look at the amount of people (hits) who've read this article. You may be surprised with the stats. Please reconsider your comments and the deletion of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerrytyme (talk • contribs) 17:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your final note, that has nothing to do with anything. JuJube (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JuJube: To the defense of Jerrytyme's final note: Dissemination of information is one thing, but public interest is what it's all about. Internet ranking will not occur without international awareness and response. Content can easily be written or printed, the difference is that it's actually read. Evidence and affirmation of this activity can be defended simply through web search engines. Ranking cannot be purchased, it's determined through public interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curric89 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I reiterate, that has nothing to do with anything. A Wikipedia page could have 2523532623632 views a day, if the sources are not up to snuff it will be deleted. JuJube (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP articles on artists -- or anyway, durable WP articles on artists -- are generally not written by "close affiliates" of those artists. Neither are they sourced to the artist's blog. Both are unnecessary, because the artist is of sufficient interest in the art world to be discussed publicly in independent publications: anyone may read these and summarize their content. ¶ You should look at the amount of people (hits) who've read this article. You may be surprised with the stats. / First, I'm unimpressed by publicly available "stats" (particularly those from "Alexa", which I believe only counts hits by those simple souls who use the mediocre Internet Explorer together with quasi-spyware). Secondly, which article are you talking about (this WP article?), and where are these statistics? -- Hoary (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources is sight might not up to snuff and you need more verifiable sources. most article are sourced if are not they can be tag asking for them to be sourced. some of the sources be in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject if the person knows the person they are writing about that is a not independent source. on a side note blog's Live Journal, my space are not good sources for articles Curric89 said he would add a LiveJournal extl-link with a interview that great but live journals I am pretty sure they are not a reliable source to be included in a article on here. like what Jujube said the number of views a article web site, blog, live journal, and my space pages does not mean it is notable or less notable so really who cares how many views a page gets that does not make it notable.Oo7565 (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary: By affiliation, I meant that Curric89 was and can still be provided with proper information which can be documented. Most press and other content isn't 100% acurate. It isn't a crime if you have access to the actual person (the subject matter). Isn't that what an interview is about? Getting the right stuff for the article. Others can and will add content to this article.

Again, a blog is a new format. It hasn't existed for centuries. "Neither are they sourced to the artist's blog" Most artists don't have a blog. Macri does. Sourcing an official and legitimate one based on the subject matter, isn't wrong or inappropriate, nor should we be compared to "most". Picasso was born in 1881, things have changed. Macri isn't in the Encyclopedia Britannica, he's not that old. A reliable third party article was added as an external link where the artist talks about aspects written in this article.

"I'm unimpressed by publicly available stats". I don't know what that is. I'm not aware of Alexa or spyware. What I meant by that comment was: I thought that "you" may have access to the stats of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerrytyme (talk • contribs) 01:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Semi-Strong to Mild Delete - Quite frankly, this article really consists of nothing more than a load of self-promotion, and I agree with Hoary that the copyright stuff does imply that Curric89 is Macri himself. Not saying you are/aren't, but it certainly looks that way, when you state that a piece of artwork by Macri is your own work... I also find it telling that the only people in favor of this article are Jerrytyme and Curric89, who appear only to be here for the purposes of this article. Also, the lack of articles linking to this seriously make me question its notability. I understand that sometimes supposed non-notability is just an excuse to cause controversy, but in this case... I really have to say that I think it's applicable. Alinnisawest (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alinnisawest: "nothing more than a load of self-promotion" This article included insight and the many different facets, concepts, which best described Macri's abstract approach to art. That was before it was stripped down to bare bones into something as "dry" as a birth certificate, by your fellow Wikis, claiming that the text was "incomprehensible" or something to that effect. Obviously a target audience issue. Please refer to original version for comparison.

"you state that a piece of artwork by Macri is your own work" This is an error I made with formating the page and artwork which would need to be rectified, if there is still a change.

"only people in favor of this article are Jerrytyme and Curric89, who appear only to be here for the purposes of this article" I was the one who spent the time to write it. I also got positive feedback from the reaction the studio received due to it since I initially posted it. This is why I'm defending it, it belongs to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curric89 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do understand how it all works, JuJube, thank you. A reaction to Alinnisawest's comment: the ownership implication was that I was the one who "initially" wrote the article. It's difficult to write about artists, abstract work, etc... It's complex and intimidating in general. It requires a close alliance, an understanding, in depth research of what it's all about. Thus, multiple contributors to this article won't be as easy as political, cultural or news making topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curric89 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC) comment I don't think a livejournal blog should be considered reliable. I only say that because there are a few very reliable art blogs that exist today and I can't find this artist mentioned on any of them. There is a big difference between a livejournal account and an art blog that has thousands of readers per month. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adamo_Macri&oldid=229651141"