Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Scuderi


 * 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  07:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Jean Scuderi
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article does not have notability, and there are no reliable references or sources. Shwangtianyuan  Talk Here  01:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails every criterion in WP:ARTIST. No reliable sources, no monographs, no exhibitions. Mduvekot (talk) 03:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep There are reliable and independent references and sources from various notable newspapers (some of them were not released online but in original paper version since the Internet was not as accessible and available 20+ years ago as present), publications of magazines of the third party, and public information which meets WP:SELFPUB. Realelise (talk) 05:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * How about the criterion in WP:ARTIST?--Wolfch (talk) 06:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to fulfill that. If they satisfyWP:BASIC, "people who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below". The problem with so many offline sources is that it's very difficult to establish whether their coverage is in-depth or just trivial mentions. No longer a penguin (talk) 10:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing this out. Indeed, I agree that the problem with offline sources you mentioned. However, the fact that there're articles of exclusive interviews on paper magazines and newspapers ages ago in references firmly exists, which just have no online version. Is it possible to solve or improve this problem with offline sources which related to copyright? Realelise (talk) 07:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete! Massive and minutely detailed article that springs fully-formed from a single-purpose account. Filled with puffery and links to social media sites, an ocean of personal trivia that could only be original research, yet still no clear evidence of significant exhibitions, recognized awards, work in notable collections, and so on. No mention of him anywhere else on Wikipedia. Deleted the advert template. Writing style uncannily similar to that of Scuderi himself, from his website. Need I go on? Clearly a promotional article, written by Scuderi or someone close to him, that fails on WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:SELFPROMOTE, WP:AUTOBIO, and likely WP:ARTIST. I'm all for lesser-known artists being in Wikipedia if they've earned it, but writing the article yourself is cheating. It's not impossible that he might meet notability criteria, but it's impossible to tell, through the fog of hype. Nothing can be salvaged from this article resumé. -- IamNotU (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm the creator of this article, who have noticed about Scuderi's artwork and been one of his followers online for a long time. I barely know him in person, but I do know someone close to him that could provide me with clips of old newspapers and some of his background. I agree that knowing the objective fact is crucial. Therefore, I think the word "cheating" you used was inaccurate and inappropriate. Certainly, none of additional criteria in WP:ARTIST got satisfied, I completely agree with this kind of comments. However, the reason I attempted to write this article was because judging by the notability of his online, articles of exclusive interviews on magazines and newspapers, I personally considered that might meet WP:BASIC of Wikipedia. Well, this is my so very first time to step in the editing/writing world of Wikipedia, there're loads of thing I have to learn and to explore. Honestly, I don't think my writing style is "uncannily similar to that of Scuderi himself" (have you visited his website? Mainly are illustrations and photos tho), and I don't know why such emotions or somehow sort of attack in your comment triggered by the article as well. Maybe my way of describing would mislead or misguide viewers to wonder that if this article is promotion or ads. If so, I'd love to know and to learn how to write a proper article and improve it to meet demands of Wikipedia since all I wrote and quoted in the article are based on reliable sources and references. Thanks for your comment. Realelise (talk) 07:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I made some assumptions that may well be wrong. If so, I apologize. We are supposed to assume good faith in other editors, but many things about this article seemed to make that difficult... Altogether, the strong feeling is that it has been written by the artist, or someone in his circle of friends. The writing style gives the impression of a French speaker, who knows Chinese. But I believe you now, that you are not Scuderi, so I'm sorry about that comment. Also the fact that a long article suddenly appeared, written by one person, who has never written in Wikipedia before. The main thing is that you appear to have access to very detailed personal information - some facts about his life that are not contained in the given sources; the up-to-date list of exhibitions, performances, and videography, complete with links, that seems like it must come from his own CV; and such a comprehensive list of relatively obscure references, that the artist must have been involved in some way. Clearly you know him personally, and I think you consider him a "friend". WP:SELFPROMOTE says "You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family, friends or foes. If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly". You are certainly not required to reveal any personal details about yourself, so if you say it doesn't apply to you, we can only trust your word. But people have unconscious positive biases towards people they have a personal connection with, even if they're not that close. Writing an article about an artist friend can cause embarassment for them if, for example, the article is deleted on the basis that they're not notable enough - there will be a permanent record of that in Wikipedia. That's why there's the quote in WP:AUTOBIO: "Upon some of Cato's friends expressing their surprise, that while many persons without merit or reputation had statues, he had none, he answered, 'I had much rather it should be asked why the people have not erected a statue to Cato, than why they have.'"


 * About my emotional reaction, I know many people who I think are very notable and deserve a Wikipedia article, and it's frustrating that I'm not allowed to write one, because I'm friends with them. So when I see someone who is not so notable as they are, who has written an article that paints himself in glowing colors, I think, that's really unfair, and dishonest - it's cheating. But in this case, it seems I made a wrong assumption, and I did overreact, so I do apologize for that.


 * Still, I'm concerned that you may have too close a connection with the artist to be able to write an objective article about him, and the present article makes it sound like he's more notable than he actually is. Even if some obvious things like "he was considered as a famous young artist" were repaired, just the fact that the article exists on Wikipedia gives the impression that the community has accepted that he has met the standards expected, in WP:ARTIST. If he hasn't - and I don't see the evidence for it - then it's unfair to Wikipedia readers, and to the artist, who might be suspected of dishonest practices, even if he has not done them.


 * I don't want to discourage you from writing on Wikipedia, I think you have some talent for it. Maybe you could start out a little more slowly though! Try editing some existing articles, and then write one about someone you don't know personally. Especially with a biography of a living person, it's a good idea to create an article first in your user space, and ask other editors for feedback in the early stages, before you add it to the main article space. -- IamNotU (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for spending time leaving comments and some very useful advice that provided me with different perspectives and insight. Even though it's not a direct personal connection, I might still unconsciously poured some subjective description into the article since I indeed know someone close to the artist, that might be an issue I wasn't aware of. The articles on Wikipedia should certainly be written/modified in an objective way. Also, your previous reaction is now understandable, and I appreciate your apology. Realelise (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete without prejudice to recreation when more reliable sources are uncovered. As with most non mainstream artists, it's quite not easy to establish notability, but for now it fails both WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for comments. According to WP:GNG, I found the sources and references utilized in the article such as articles on newspapers, media and personal in-depth interview on published paper magazines/journals satisfy "significant coverage", which "is more than a trivial mention", but the "reliable sources" that "encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language." Additionally, it doesn't need to fulfill WP:CREATIVE since "people who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below." (WP:BASIC) Realelise (talk) 08:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Realelise, it says that they may be considered, not that they should be. And WP:GNG says "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included." If an artist doesn't meet any of the criteria in WP:CREATIVE/WP:ARTIST, then there must be some other compelling reason to go ahead and include them anyway. Otherwise there would be no point in having WP:ARTIST at all, if it can simply be ignored. As I said, readers expect that an artist who has a Wikipedia article about them has a level of notability similar to what is implied by the WP:ARTIST criteria. If not, and there is no other reason to include them, the article should be deleted. Without convincing evidence - and I think there is none to be found - that Scuderi has met some of these criteria, in particular "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, has won significant critical attention, or is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums", I'm sorry to say, you should expect that this article will be deleted. -- IamNotU (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete because fails WP:GNG. Essentially is not a notable person. Cannot find any significant coverage of person outside first party sources. Also no French page. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 09:27, 6 May 2016 (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.