Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Sillada


 * 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   keep. Cirt (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Danny Sillada

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not meet notability guidelines for inclusion. Reference has no related pages mentioning the subject. Also do not exist. There are no news sources relating/or saying his notability. The image used is possible copyright violation from one of the external links. Finally, external links that are supposed to detail on how he should be notabvle fails to describe this, some are of weblog. In particular, not all painter/philosopher, performanec artist or critic is notable.  JL 09 Talk to me! msg 4 u! 05:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Copy-pasted from the talk page:
 * The artist, according to the present version of the article, has been the subject of a student newspaper article and a University research paper. In itself, this does not constitute notability. Things that would help include: evidence of significant press coverage, major prizes or awards, work held in significant collections.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete no significant accomplishments, no credible sources. Student newspapers are not really credible for establishing notability unless what they report is especially significant.   DGG ( talk ) 16:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment : According to WP:Artist, he must least developed new concept in the field where he excelled, in this case, he is a surrealist painter and he doesn't developed that idea. Yes, he have "Menstrual Period in Political History", supposed to be an important media in history especially during Hello Garci scandal, but what about other painters that did the same and has the same ideas with him? The inline citations rarely distinguish him, or at least, the links never mentioned him, I do not know why this happened. Most links came from Multiply or privately-owned blog sites. ( According to this rule, it is unwise to use blogs as external links or as citation. To paraphrase, blogs are solely interpretation of the concern and are subjected to bias; i.e., I can say on my blog that "Sillada is the greatest born Filipino painter, greater than Amorsolo and others". That is extreme bias, especially that majority of blogs (esp. Multiply) tend to give opinions rather than the truth. ) To continue, it was also said that the artist's work(s) must "...(a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention,..." In this case, the "Menstrual Period" was the only mentioned work that gained critical analysis: and it was referenced to a website where it is very very difficult to confirm whether it was really said on that site. Furthermore, the article fails WP:MUSICBIO. Finally, Google search of his names will give us blog sites, Amazon/Twitter/Facebook and other links to social networking sites and there are no reliable news sources to confirm that Gloria Arroyo conferred him such an award. Sure that it is cited, but do we have any ways to confirm that? If that was published in a coffee table, sure that there is, at least, a news article from an online local newspaper saying that.-- JL 09  q? c|undefined 12:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Those subject-specific criteria do not have to be fulfilled if WP:N is. Print sources are perfectly acceptable is they meet WP:RS. The way to confirm it is to buy the book or find it in a library. There is no requirement for sources to be online.  Ty  03:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  —Bluemask (talk) 05:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 06:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:DELSORTed under Arts. --Cyber cobra (talk) 06:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. –  Ty  00:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Article has improved since the nom with more references. The link mentioned as not existing is on the Internet Archive and now linked.  Ty  03:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep My comment above, quoted by the nominee, was added to the talkpage to explain why I had re-added a notability tag . Since then, even before the AfD nom, the article had been improved. Still doesn't meet the WP:CREATIVE criteria I was alluding to, and the subject isn't in any way a major artist. But multiple refs make it OKish.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  21:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep: Article has been improved. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per above, still needs credible work though...Modernist (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Well, he did won an award, but I'm not sure of its significance; I have the impression that it's a local award created to commemorate a centennial. The fact that the President of the Philippines doesn't automaticall(y) make the award notable; would have also said the same about the artist in this article. I'd agree with Ethicoaestheticist, I was looking for something more substantive.
 * One more thing: improving the article doesn't make it more keep-worthy. For all I care, even a hoax article can be improved to bring it up to the level of a featured article, but that doesn't make it more worthy of a keep. In considering whether an article should be kept or deleted, one should evaluate the merits of an article based on its notability, and the sources with its verifiability and reliability. --- Tito Pao (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My comment about the improvement was meant to mean that it had improved sufficiently to be kept, but that there was justification for the nom, because at that time it was not in a state to be kept.  Ty  01:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment about the improvement: Even though the article was improved, the concerned person is still not notable. The fact is that he only have one painting mentioned that became "controversial", and citations rarely mentioned his name. He was also a recipient of only one award, but the award's notability is still in question. Apart from that, the article does not give any assertion why he should be notable. One of the links is still a work done by Sillada, which according to this is not good. Okay, so the article has citations that point into some website: but they are pointed into the homepage of a certain website that is difficult to find where on the earth he mentioned . As such, winning an award does not mean a very fast elevation to notability. I agree with Titopao, if I'm not mistaken, certified hoax, when written very well can be an FA -- a good-written article does not mean a good content, it must also be subjected to WP rules since this is Wikipedia.-- JL 09  q? c|undefined 12:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * An artist's works do not have to be controversial. The ref you mention to the homepage gives the issue date and page number for the print source: it does not seem to be online. If you check the refs, you will find articles specifically about Sillada in different sources. There is no indication this is a hoax.  Ty  01:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We are not saying this is a hoax, but I am citing a hoax article as an example.-- JL 09  q? c|undefined 14:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per Ty and others. There will inevitably be much less coverage in Anglophone media of Filipino artists, which sways me. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2009 (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.