Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audic rizk


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was DELETE. &mdash; J I P | Talk 09:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Audic rizk
Vanity article (author is Audic rizk); does not appear to be notable (25 unique Google hits); images have copyright notice. MCB 22:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: They try to make themselves sound like a big deal with this sentence: "Represented by the Christine Colas gallery in Paris, they exhibit regularly in Europe, the Middle East and Japan."  I don't have the expertise to know whether this, if true, would make them significant in any way or not.   Friday (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment Very easy to check the truth of the information. Try Google!! pictures and links to the names of galleries and exhibitions are proof of their activity. As for the vanity article. It is not the quantity of google pages but the quality of the work and the possibility to create links from it which should be the question. It is preferable to be transparent and show the author as user than useless misleading by creating another Author. Wikipedia is surely not a place where someone puts adds on himself, nevertheless it is one way of getting into the wiki world and starting to collaborate.(Audic Rizk)
 * The question is not proof of "activity", which is manifest, nor the quality of the work (which I find quite appealing); it is whether it is well-known, widely written about, or the subject of media interest and art criticism, and so forth, and thus appropriate for an encyclopedia article. So yes, to some extent quantity is important. Writing and posting a article about yourself or your business creates the appearance of a "vanity" or self-promotional article. I would recommend moving this to User space ("userfy"). MCB 06:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * September 30th was an exceptionally busy AfD day. So this debate among several got almost no attention. Relisting in hope of some tender, loving debate this time around. -Splash talk 00:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Good art, exhibits may be real, but there's not enough notability to make any of the article verifiable.  Almost notable is still non-notable.  Perhaps with some published critical reviews...  --A D Monroe III 01:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete NN, reads like an ad. --Rogerd 02:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The authors of this page have had plenty of time now to cite independent sources for the facts on the page and have not. The information isn't therefore verifiable. (Frequently happens with non-notable topics, yeah?) The quality of the artwork is absolutely not a criteria here. Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Too much like an ad. I would just say cleanup but the notability question looms too. Qaz  ( talk ) 08:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable photographers, advertising. It is verifiable, however. Andrew pmk | Talk 16:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Show me how to verify "Their photos [...] carry within them delirious derivatives going from painting to oneirism which nonetheless embody a tangible reality." Without the nonverifiable fluff, this page is one or two sentenses long. Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or Userfy, as above. MCB 06:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.