Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurent Pariente


 * 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 per rewrite. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  16:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Laurent Pariente


Violates WP:AUTO, creator was. Contested prod. MER-C 12:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC) style="color: rgb(255, 102, 0);"> Curtis talk+contributions 14:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The references seem to demonstrate notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 14:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - entirely copied from the subjects website, seems like a vanity article to me. michael  Curtis talk+contributions 23:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete (see below) SPAM. Word-for-word from the artist's website. This is clearly not intended to be an encyclopedia article. OfficeGirl 23:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I trimmed some text a few minutes ago. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply- I appreciate your desire to be an inclusionist, but I'm not sure this article is salvageable at this time. It needs to be torn to the ground completely and maybe someone can build a new one.  Is anyone prepared to actually look at the third-party sources listed on the artist's website and draw information from them directly?  Artists from the visual arts field tend to be horrible writers when it comes to factual pieces.  This is a prime example.  Notability is not the only criteria.  Someone has to be prepared to do real research and write a good, encyclopedic article.  If no one is ready, willing and able then we MUST delete and put this artist's name on  the list of articles that are wanted but not created.  Trimming the text won't be enough to keep this piece of copyright infringement.  According to Wikipedia's very own Brad Patrick in shoot on sight, "draconic" measures are necessary to remove excessive vanity articles that threaten WP's credibility.  This is one such article. OfficeGirl 01:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I did some further work on the bibliography to eliminate any remaining copyright infringement, discarding most of the material from the original article, and adding citations that I was able to verify myself. At this point, the article is more of a stub, but being a stub is not reason in itself for deletion. Laurent Pariente seems quite notable, based on all the evidence, and after all the pruning that has taken place, there's not much remaining of the original article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice work. Looks stub-like to me.  Copyright issues seem to be addressed.  Keep per work done by TruthbringerToronto  Kudos. OfficeGirl 02:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

keep I want to reply to Officegirl and MichaelCurtis: First Guitemie Maldonado and i wrote the presentation in my article. To my knowledge I don't see why this article is not encyclopedic. It's a very good introduction about my work which as all visual work is not easy to describe. Second there are a good deal of visual artists in the entire history who have been both tremendous visual artist and exceptional writers. I have myself written numerous articles on my work as well on other artists. Being a visual artist doesn't make me illiterate. Third, again if you consider the work worthwile as Truthbringer seemed to have understoond, you should give it a chance instead of trimming it like a bonzaï (I'm currently working in Japan), and be happy to have one more interesting creator becoming part of Wikipedia. Thanks.

keep Hello, I'm Laurent Pariente and I only put the information I had in hands right now. If you go to my website you would see I have done a lot of personal and creative work so far and all the information I put on Wikipedia is just mine and will grow with time. Deleting my article won't help growing the article. Thanks for your understanding.


 * 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.