Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Loyauté


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Benjamin Loyauté

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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 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 [this newspaper article]. Vexations (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment- 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. Netherzone (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete it's also been listed for deletion on the French wiki, with pretty much the same reasoning given here. Oaktree b (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I will say I am Weak delete on this. The article is atrociously promotional and full of BS at the moment. The sources I saw were a Guardian review, a Gulf News review (same author as Guardian), something minor in Bloomberg, a profile in L’officiel (a French Fashion magazine apparently published since 1921), and this Book on Pierre Cardin, published by Flammarion,` the latter of which is not a source but gives some indication of importance. The French Wikipedia 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?"ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , 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 WP:SYNTH. Would such an outcome work for you? Vexations (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 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, if kept would need a complete rewrite, and I don't think there is enough sourcing to justify that new article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - 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 WP:TNT, 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. Netherzone (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: The GulfNews item linked above by ThatMontrealIP looks like an acceptable RS. I missed that earlier. Netherzone (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. The nom is a patient editor and has done work here.  I agree with them that there might 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.  --Lockley (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2020 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.