Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Vasserman

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. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Vasserman

Disputed prod. Original prod reason (by User:Barkeep) was: Does not seem to satisfy notability guidelines per WP:CREATIVE. Article is merely a collection of information with no context and falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Article asserts winning of awards, but not indication of whether the awards are notable/some easy peasy thing anyone can get. Sources do not meet WP:RS standards. Overall article is just one major advertisement. DreamGuy (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unless something concrete in terms of reliable sources can be found. I looked, and couldn't find anything. The Estonian language version is basically the same article, just not as crufty as this. --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Based on the claims made in the article he is de facto notable per WP:CREATIVE. This is evidenced by the claims made in the article that the artist has won many awards, and that his art is displayed in many galleries and exhibitions. Wordssuch (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know if it can it be verified that these works are "permanent collections" in any "notable" galleries, museums, or libraries? If so, proper references need to be used. As for awards which of these is notable and has been documented by a third party?
Delete per my original prod. Barkeep^{Chat | $} 13:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article provides links to document each of the awards claimed. Wordssuch (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the links and not found anything that meets our criteria. Most of those links to award claims are to the individual's own website, which is not a third party. I'm not seeing anything reliable or notable about the others. We would need some outside source showing notability of these awards, which has already been explained to you. Please provide concrete examples instead of just claiming it here. DreamGuy (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The short bio at the University of Western Sydney Art Collection confirms some of the awards [1].--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced. Dlabtot (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Ethico, who has found an acceptable reference. Johnbod (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage to establish notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin – Wordssuch (talk · contribs), who has !voted above, has been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet of Azviz (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz/Archive. MuZemike 16:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's unreferenced and as ChildofMidnight said, there is insufficient coverage to establish notability.--Artypants, ^Babble 18:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promotional and notability not clearly established — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I got rid of some of the most indiscriminate sections. If there's any information within it that goes to credit his notability than by all means it can be restored. I don't see a single thing in the article that establishes notability, and its also poorly referenced as the external links are neither reliable nor independant. Them From Space 05:43, 27 April 2009 (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.