397:- I'm going to have to say delete on this. After going through a copy of the article and removing all the content referenced to primary sources, unverifiable content and sources that did not mention the artist, all that was left were a few trivial items that were more like press releases or listings, and one usable source (in STEIÐZ). I could not unpack the JSTOR item because it seems my library card has expired? The Bloomberg item is 2 sentences long. The L'officiel piece is an interview, and therefore a primary source. He did write the book mentioned above on Pierre Cardin, but it's just a listing of the book not a review of it. Not sure if that is enough to pass muster. I'm not one to invoke
238:
mention the subject, for example in the section about the sweets and Trump, where sources that discuss Trump's tweets about skittles are well documented, but no mention of the subject is made, which are then combined with other sources to come to a conclusion that is not supported by the sources. Anoher example is the claim that the subject was involved in the purchase of Native
American Hopi and Pueblo masks, which is well-documented as a purchase made by the Annenberg foundation and 1 item by the lawyer representing the Hopi, Pierre Servan-Schreiber, as detailed in .
278:- Yikes! Mega-name dropping! Grew up in the same 'hood as Duchamp! Met Paul McCartney and Claude Levi Strauss! Offered the son of Cheetos-tinted president one of his edible sculptures via Tweet, then writes a invitation for T-Junior + family to visit his show! Last but not least a Hopi mask "called to him"! I actually laughed out loud when reading the article, but seriously, with so much failed verification, it is hard to say what may be credible and what is not. This will take a bit of unravelling.
350:, I think there are two issues here; a) is the subject notable? (i.e. is there sufficient significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to sustain an article) and b) is there anything in this article than can be kept? My answer to a) is probably, my answer to b) is unequivocally no. A keep would be acceptable if conditional upon a complete rewrite. Even the text that is currently cited to reliable sources cannot be retained because there is so much
333:,` the latter of which is not a source but gives some indication of importance. The French Knowledge article just seems to be tagged for notability, with the same problem we have here: "Parmi les 60 (!) références, quelles sont les deux sources secondaires centrées qui attestent sa notoriété ? Translation: "60 sources... where are the two independent ones we actually need to prove notability?"
375:
I actually changed my comment many times it within a few minutes of posting it, going from weak keep to neutral to weak delete. It is possible therefore that you were replying to an earlier version of my comment. I Found some sourcing but it is not enough. Still going with weak delete. The article,
237:
This article has a lot of citations, most of them in French, so it is little difficult to see, but the amount of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources is insufficient to sustain an article. Another problem is the amount of original research. There are quite a few citations that don't
440:
be a valid notable mouse crawling around under this nightmare haystack of peacock language, OR, bad sources, unprovable assertions, and relentless self-regard, but any keep would mean a complete re-write. There's nothing here worth saving.
206:
401:, but the best approach may be to simply start over if it turns out that he is notable. If good sourcing is found I could change my mind, but for now deletion seems appropriate.
200:
159:
314:
255:
459:
322:
106:
91:
166:
132:
127:
136:
119:
318:
221:
188:
86:
79:
17:
182:
100:
96:
330:
471:
450:
426:
410:
385:
363:
342:
304:
287:
267:
247:
61:
178:
489:
467:
40:
381:
338:
376:
if kept would need a complete rewrite, and I don't think there is enough sourcing to justify that new article.
326:
228:
417:
Note: The GulfNews item linked above by ThatMontrealIP looks like an acceptable RS. I missed that earlier.
123:
485:
36:
313:
on this. The article is atrociously promotional and full of BS at the moment. The sources I saw were a
295:
it's also been listed for deletion on the French wiki, with pretty much the same reasoning given here.
115:
67:
463:
422:
406:
283:
57:
377:
359:
347:
334:
300:
263:
243:
214:
194:
446:
75:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
484:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
418:
402:
351:
279:
53:
370:
355:
296:
259:
239:
436:. The nom is a patient editor and has done work here. I agree with them that there
398:
442:
153:
329:(a French Fashion magazine apparently published since 1921), and this
480:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
149:
145:
141:
213:
321:
review (same author as
Guardian), something minor in
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
492:). No further edits should be made to this page.
458:Note: This discussion has been included in the
254:Note: This discussion has been included in the
331:Book on Pierre Cardin, published by Flammarion
227:
8:
256:list of Artists-related deletion discussions
107:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
460:list of France-related deletion discussions
457:
253:
354:. Would such an outcome work for you?
7:
24:
92:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
82:(AfD)? Read these primers!
509:
472:16:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
451:01:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
427:15:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
411:14:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
386:14:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
364:14:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
343:03:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
305:01:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
288:23:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
268:21:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
248:21:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
62:21:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
482:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
80:Articles for deletion
474:
270:
97:Guide to deletion
87:How to contribute
500:
374:
309:I will say I am
232:
231:
217:
169:
157:
139:
116:Benjamin Loyauté
77:
68:Benjamin Loyauté
34:
508:
507:
503:
502:
501:
499:
498:
497:
496:
490:deletion review
464:Robert McClenon
368:
325:, a profile in
315:Guardian review
174:
165:
130:
114:
111:
74:
71:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
506:
504:
495:
494:
476:
475:
454:
453:
430:
429:
414:
413:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
378:ThatMontrealIP
348:ThatMontrealIP
335:ThatMontrealIP
307:
290:
272:
271:
235:
234:
171:
110:
109:
104:
94:
89:
72:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
505:
493:
491:
487:
483:
478:
477:
473:
469:
465:
461:
456:
455:
452:
448:
444:
439:
435:
432:
431:
428:
424:
420:
416:
415:
412:
408:
404:
400:
396:
393:
387:
383:
379:
372:
367:
366:
365:
361:
357:
353:
349:
346:
345:
344:
340:
336:
332:
328:
324:
320:
316:
312:
308:
306:
302:
298:
294:
291:
289:
285:
281:
277:
274:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
252:
251:
250:
249:
245:
241:
230:
226:
223:
220:
216:
212:
208:
205:
202:
199:
196:
193:
190:
187:
184:
180:
177:
176:Find sources:
172:
168:
164:
161:
155:
151:
147:
143:
138:
134:
129:
125:
121:
117:
113:
112:
108:
105:
102:
98:
95:
93:
90:
88:
85:
84:
83:
81:
76:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
481:
479:
437:
433:
394:
310:
292:
275:
236:
224:
218:
210:
203:
197:
191:
185:
175:
162:
73:
49:
47:
31:
28:
311:Weak delete
201:free images
419:Netherzone
403:Netherzone
327:L’officiel
280:Netherzone
54:Malcolmxl5
486:talk page
371:Vexations
356:Vexations
323:Bloomberg
319:Gulf News
297:Oaktree b
260:Vexations
240:Vexations
37:talk page
488:or in a
352:WP:SYNTH
160:View log
101:glossary
39:or in a
443:Lockley
276:Comment
207:WP refs
195:scholar
133:protect
128:history
78:New to
434:Delete
399:WP:TNT
395:Delete
293:Delete
179:Google
137:delete
50:delete
438:might
222:JSTOR
183:books
167:Stats
154:views
146:watch
142:links
16:<
468:talk
447:talk
423:talk
407:talk
382:talk
360:talk
339:talk
317:, a
301:talk
284:talk
264:talk
244:talk
215:FENS
189:news
150:logs
124:talk
120:edit
58:talk
229:TWL
158:– (
470:)
462:.
449:)
441:--
425:)
409:)
384:)
362:)
341:)
303:)
286:)
266:)
258:.
246:)
209:)
152:|
148:|
144:|
140:|
135:|
131:|
126:|
122:|
60:)
52:.
466:(
445:(
421:(
405:(
380:(
373::
369:@
358:(
337:(
299:(
282:(
262:(
242:(
233:)
225:·
219:·
211:·
204:·
198:·
192:·
186:·
181:(
173:(
170:)
163:·
156:)
118:(
103:)
99:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.