Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Lagasse


 * 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. I don't find that the keep arguments successfully rebut the detailed source analysis. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Karl Lagasse

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

A highly promotional article that seems to be either an autobiography or possibly UPE. I spent a good part of the morning trying to unpack what substantial coverage I might find from the press releases, calendar listings, user-submitted content, primary sourcing and the like. There is not much left to substantiate notability; the closest thing is the Austin American-Statesman piece on a gallery he opened in Austin to sell his own work. However part of that article is press release material. A BEFORE search reveals his own website claiming he is a "Renowned Artist and Top 10 Sculptor in the World" in ALL CAPS!; social media, auction listings, art sales sites to buy his "one dollar sculptures" or NFTs, but no serious reviews of exhibitions, art historical critical analysis or what we would normally find for a notable artist. It seems that the article is unambiguous advertising WP:ADMASQ for an artist who does not pass WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. Source analysis chart below. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisting. It would help if those advocating Keep either contested the Source assessment table or mentioned the additional sources they have located which would count towards establishing GNG. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Arbitrarily0   ( talk ) 02:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Visual arts, France,  and Texas. Netherzone (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per the wonderful source analysis above. Non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete wow, I'm going to start providing this analysis in future AfDs. I did look for more sources and I found one weak source which is an interview with the Armenian Mirror-Spectator but it's quite short and doesn't support notability very well. This additional source was not enough for me to change my vote.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 20:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The article as written is WP:PROMO and the original creator 3d.nftart is a one topic editor. Lagasse has a number of pieces listed on ArtNet. I don't know what the deal is with NFTs, but he doesn't seem to be selling any of them. Leaning towards delete. He isn't in any collections or been included in exhibitions of notable museums. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello,, ArtNet is a marketing website and database for art auction sales, which does contribute to notability (no different than a listing). It is "place to buy, sell, and research art online." However ArtNet News is a different part of the same site with news items with bylines, and editorial oversight; there is a discussion in the archives of WP:RSP stating the news items can be reliable. I think it's important to keep in mind that any artist or gallery can pay ArtNet/ArtNet News for a "home page" subscription, so the site also contains user-submitted/user-generated content. I've always been somewhat on the fence whether or not we should use the news site, but I feel the database is not very useful for what we do here at WP. Netherzone (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, Thanks for the ping. I didn't mean to imply that ArtNet was a RS for proving notability. I did think it was interesting that that were so many entries and it gave me pause. I am so out of tune with 21st century artists I just wondered if I was missing something. After looking at the article yet again and reviewing your source analysis, I realize that it is truly is a very slick piece of promotion. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:NARTIST. He isn't in any collections or been included in exhibitions of notable museums. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. A search turned up multiple reliable sources, which clearly show notability, with several of those sources already in the article. The article is overwritten and in need of paring down, some of which I have done, but that does not negate the reliable sources in the article that do show notability. The sales sites erroneously included in the article can easily be removed. Meets WP:GNG and passes WP:NARTIST. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST with multiple independent sources with significant coverage. These are already cited in the article or in the French language wikipedia article Fr:Karl Lagasse. Some of the RS from the French wiki page was not included in the source analysis above. That said, the article is horribly written and overly promotional and needs a thorough re-write or at least a trimming down to bare essentials. AfD is not cleanup.4meter4 (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete - Source assessment table demonstrates a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Not seeing any convincing rebuttal from keep voters. MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - could you provide examples of RS from the French Wikipedia page?-KH-1 (talk) 02:25, 11 October 2022 (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.