Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Pero Manescu


 * 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.  Sandstein  17:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Dan Pero Manescu

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Purely promotional page on an eminently non-notable subject. Let's go through the footnotes to see how trivial any coverage is:


 * This, this, this, this, this and this make no mention at all of the subject.


 * This lists a handful of plays he directed, and this lists one of them. Neither source amounts to in-depth coverage.


 * This is a blog post and this is a biography on another wiki. No comment is needed.


 * This and this are self-submitted blurbs.


 * I'm not sure what this, this, this, this and this (!) are supposed to demonstrate, but it's certainly not notability they're establishing.

In sum, the coverage of Manescu is so paltry as to hardly count as trivial. Any pretense that he has received "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is laughable. - Biruitorul Talk 21:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Promotional page, quite possible self-promotional page. Outside references for the large part falsified or misused (most do not verify the text), the rest is scanty and circular. The message whereby the article's creator implies that the nominator is an antisemite for having raised concerns about this article is ludicrous in reasoning, but very disruptive as an attempt to poison the well. Dahn (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The Usar with the ridiculos name of "BIRUITORUL" (of Romanian language "The Victor" or "The Conqueror"!?) is a small monument of Lack of Culture with a groundless malicious sarcasm, and with his "nice" remarks concerning the verfied external sources of this article, this User practically denigrates the work and the name of Dan Pero Manescu. For this reason we don't think that such an User could provide the competence to judge of the articles of Wikipedia. That's anyway very, very sad, that any kind of people get the opportunity today to scribble any kind of inept things in the most of the articles of Wikipedia, scribbling of an English language learned in the Kindergarten. On this way Wikipedia is no more for us the serious Encyclopedia which has been once open a time. What a pity..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Q-ART (talk • contribs) 13:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

'''This article about the well known German artist Dan Pero Manescu is the same article since over 3 years. The article is clear and shortly written, neutral, with just simple but verified external sources. Very interesting that's following: the Users who are trying to reject this article are Romanian Users, from Romania (see details to the Users' name).We don't think that Romanian Users living only in Romania have the competence to judge objective of articles about people living abroad! We think that any kind of farther comment is unnecessary and strictly speaking this article has to remain on place!''' PERBAST — Preceding unsigned comment added by PERBAST (talk • contribs) 08:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as unverifiable and lacking significant recognition by critics in the art community. I also note that the article was developed through a series of sock-puppets (User:Q-ART has claimed copyright ownership of Dan Pero Manescu's art, edited User:DAN - PERO MANESCU's page, and, in turn, User:DAN - PERO MANESCU has edited User:Dan-pero's page), essentially the article is an autobiography or, at the least, was primarily written by a COI editor.  TheMindsEye (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

'''Dan Pero Manescu has organized over 40 Exhibitions between 1991 and 2006 in several countries and concerning the critics in the art community there are a lot of statements in newspapers and very few on-line. Important is the print on the paper, the rest could have a very short life.''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by PERBAST (talk • contribs) 15:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC) '''Dear Dahn, I'm very sorry, but just because I'm understanding very well what Wikipedia wants to be, I see that the real personal attacks can be noticed just above on this page, and any neutral people reading the words of the User "Biruitorul" will agree that such a kind of expressions with such a kind of biterness never belong to Wikipedia. I am writing about Dan Pero Manescu because I find his work very special and strong, a little bit unique in the world of the art community, and I think that many of the around 400 viewers, of the last 4 days, share the same point of view with mine. That's my last comment now, because anyway Dan Pero Manescu remains the all-round extraordinary artist he was and shall be..''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by PERBAST (talk • contribs) 09:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear User:Q-ART/User:DAN - PERO MANESCU/User:Dan-pero/User:PERBAST: with your glaring conflict of interest, sockpuppetry and personal attacks, you're effectively demolishing every ounce of integrity that your answers could have ever projected. You manifestly fail to understand what wikipedia is and isn't; if you want your rhetoric to at least seem like good faith and common sense, you should at the very least spare us the inflammatory rants. Dahn (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and make it a FA. Why? Because I have a sense of humour. --Defetistul (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Not only is the page largely promotional in nature, as demonstrated by the nominator none of the provided references are reliable third party sources. Some of the references are not even about the article's subject, being instead about things that people related to this artist did.  One of them is, in fact, about a completely different person, who a relative of this artist once wrote about.  Since none of the references here are worth anything, and no one else can find any better, the subject fails WP:ARTIST.  Rorshacma (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You have to delete this article or just let it on place! The "highbrow" masturbation of some of Users is no more tolerably for intelligent people! That's like a circus with a chorus of blinds as orchestra. This is a kind of monkeypedia.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Q-ART (talk • contribs) 18:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: User:Q-ART and User:PERBAST have been blocked as obvious sockpuppet accounts and for gross personal attacks and civility violations. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ??????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightcameleon (talk • contribs) 18:31, 29 March 2012 (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.