Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacques Daliwe


 * 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 speedy keep. Per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Jacques Daliwe

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Minor artist, fails WP:GNG, only ever did a single piece of artwork StickyWicket (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep the Dutch Wikipedia article has some good sources. Moreover, the artist is found in encyclopedias, including Benezit, Grove Art, and Larousse. Curiocurio (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep a search finds many mentions, which is a strong indication of notability seeing as he died 604 years ago. Meets WP:ANYBIO per Curiocurio.  Possibly (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep article can be expanded based on the Dutch version. Plenty of sources exist. Vexations (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep As per all above. Setreis (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - It does not matter if he only made one known existant work; what matters is notability, and this artist has achieved that bar as per his entries in Dictionaries of artists, encyclopedias, and the sources that others have mentioned above. Netherzone (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh look, an editor gets some of his articles nominated for deletion, and now makes revenge nominations here and here against someone else who did the same. Speedy keep. Fram (talk) 08:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note According to WP:NPERSON a person should have had “significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources”. No prove for that is given in the article. SportsOlympic (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , the sources don't need to be cited in the article, they need to exist. If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. See WP:BEFORE Vexations (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m just stating that there is no prove at this moment that these sources exist. SportsOlympic (talk) 08:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So you consider a separate entry in Grove Art Online, and more specifically a separate entry in the Grand Larousse encyclopédique, one of the most famous encyclopedias (basically the French version of the Britannica) not "significant coverage in ..."? Or do you dispute that these sources (and the Benezit and so on) exist? Never mind that his work has been reprinted in 1964 and in 1987, with in 1987 a second volume of commentary. Or that he got an exhibition in 2002/2003 (with reprints on that site of the Larousse and Grove info, but also from other sources). I have no idea what your objection is (except revenge for my nominations of some articles you created), but it really is completely baseless and doesn't reflect well on you. Fram (talk) 08:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , These exist:       Vexations (talk) 14:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your list. pushes and blames everybody to add original sources and always states database entries are not good enough. And see his own article, haha. Fram would argue about your list in an AfD; apart from the larousse source these are all database sources. No prove of in debt sources about the subject. SportsOlympic (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you even know what a database is? Or, for that matter, the difference between "depth" and "debt"? If you want to attack my work, perhaps choose a better target than an AfD with unanimous keep votes and plenty of in-depth sources, including complete books about his work. Fram (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm leaving your comment here because Fram already replied, even though I have every right to remove it as a blatant violation of our No personal attacks policy, because derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor.Additionally, the fact that you admit that you contributed to this AfD as a way to get back at Fram for some perceived slight means your contribution here ought to be disregarded as motivated by malice. This needs to stop right now. Vexations (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subject can be found in several notable encyclopedias, including a Grand Larousse encyclopédique entry. Passes WP:GNG. ExRat (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2021 (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.