Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerry Ross (painter)


 * 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. Good improvement. PeaceNT (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Jerry Ross (painter)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - orphaned WP:COI article. Started by SPA User:Pittore whose only contributions have been to this article. Also multiple edits by User:Rossjerry. Note that these combine to form the name of the artist's website. Subject does not appear to pass WP:BIO. Otto4711 02:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Keep The fact that a SPA user created this doesn't alter notability. The subject is clearly notable and has third party sources Decoratrix 04:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Change to Keep per new references. Modernist 12:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions.   —David Eppstein 03:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable artist with no references.  freshacconci  speak to me  11:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Otto4711 and unreferenced per above - Modernist 13:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable and can be verified by | almost 200,000 Ghits. Bearian 21:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Let's not forget that GHITS in and of themselves do not establish notability (nor do they prove the opposite either, in and of themselves). However, it must be noted that the 200,000 GHITS (actually 197,000) are not all for this Jerry Ross alone, so the number mentioned is a bit over-stated. Reliable, third-party sources are necessary to establish notability, and so far I have not seen any.  freshacconci  speak to me  21:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The author should be allowed time to establish notability by citing reliable, third-party sources necessary to establish notability. Have you read the discussion by noted art historian Clarice Zdanski ?(see discussion tab) unsigned comment added by Rossjerry (talk • contribs)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 04:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that references were added to the article after the above comments. --W.marsh 04:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: Per the recent changes. Seems notable, as partially evident from the GHits, and it is sourced, now. - Rjd0060 05:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Per the current version. • Lawrence Cohen  06:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per current version -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 10:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm still disturbed by the issue of WP:COI, as the major contributor to this article is Rossjerry and his sockpuppet Pittore (see his "keep" !vote above, which was "signed" by Pittore using Rossjerry's account). At this point, all I see is a minor local artist who is attempting to use Wikipedia to promote himself (judging from the sources provided, he is not an internationally recognized artist beyond some minor exhibitions in Italy).  freshacconci  speak to me  12:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but verify the hell out of the article due to WP:COI. Based on the sources, he appears notable through verifiable reliable sources.  spryde |  talk  14:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: SSP case opened here. shoy  (words words) 18:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep:My goodness, in art "notability" is an awfully subjective term. The statements are now sourced, and I will tell you that within Western Oregon at least, the artist is notable. Oregondave2 (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I do not see any listings of works in major museum--perhaps i missed it among all the self-promotion.DGG (talk) 04:15, 17 November 2007 (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.