Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Genovese (artist)

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. Star Mississippi 02:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Genovese (artist)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. 4 pageviews in 30 days for an American BLP is very low. Edwardx (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, California, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I’m seeing sufficient coverage, both in depth and continuing, that I’m not comfortable with deletion. Page views may be low, but irrelevant as sourcing is sufficient in my mind. Jo7hs2 (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although at the present it's more of a resume than an encyclopedic article, the sources are enough to keep, and hopefully at some point the page will expand. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ARTIST lists 4 criteria (of which one need to be met), and I'm not convinced that the article in its current form demonstrates that. Perhaps if additional context is provided to supplement the "single sentence article" it might aide in convincing me that WP:ARTIST is met. MetricMaster (talk) 09:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked.[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject of the article fails WP:ARTIST. Internet search shows user-generated content or websites for group shows, but no reliable independent sources. It doesn't matter how many views the page gets. The subject is not notable. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reviewed the sources. Mostly local and quite a few dead links. Please note that the coverage ends at 2016, so there has been no effort or interest in keeping this article up-to-date by any editor. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and I'm not seeing anything to show they meet WP:NARTIST.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discounting the blocked sockpuppet there does not appear to be a strong consensus one way or another. As a suggestion, perhaps elaboration on which specific sources show notability and/or why they are insufficient would help form consensus?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The items referenced in the article, if they are verifiable, are insufficient to show WP:NARTIST. The article fails to show that Genovese has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. As I have previously commented, the references are mostly local and quite a few are dead links. He is a working artist who exhibits, but I cannot find any material online that shows notability. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourcing in the article is problematic (there are a lot of dubious sources here, source 11 being a link to the Frost Art Museum homepage for instance, while source 9 is a 404 - let alone the others already flagged as failing verification - and this is typical of the quality of references), there simply is little or even arguably no evidence subject passes WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There isn't even a real notability claim in the article. -- asilvering (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2023 (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.