Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mario Tauzin


 * 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Aasim 07:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Mario Tauzin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

GNG fail. Cannot find sources. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. I have found a mention of him in this book: Pornography and Silence: Culture's Revenge Against Nature, as well as the subject's entry in the National Library of Australia - here, where it's stated that 'The subject of this copper plate by Mario Tauzin is reproduced in the Erotische Kunst im 20 Jahrhundert, p. 47" Fisher Library Rare Books and Special Collections copy was purchased by William H. Deane from the International Museum of Erotic Art, San Francesco, in 1973'. There's some info on him here which as far as I understood from the googletranslate says there's a book about him and he founded an Academy (I may be wrong as I don't speak French). Here is another book by him, more info here. Also here] is info on his work at Centre Pompidou. In general I think he passes the WP:GNG, there should be more French sources. Less Unless (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I saw those sources, and in particular:
 * The National library of Australia. A library collection is not an indicator of notability as a museum collection is, as it has a very low barrier for inclusion.
 * The Millon.com source is not a source but rather a book for sale. The French says, in essence, This book has twenty plates of the artist's work. One of an edition of 300. Price 100-300 Euro. The mention of an academy translates to roughly "some friends got a house and founded an informal academy".
 * The Vincent Lecuyer link is not a reliable source either; it just says a painting was sold. Auction houses and dealers sell painting by non-notable artists all the time.
 * The Ader-paris.fr link is another auction house, and does not contribute to notability. For a painting that sold for 120-180 Euro.
 * The last link, from the Pompidou, says that a poster he designed is in the collection of 11,000 (!) boxes of papers by Marc Vaux held by the museum. "	Mario Tauzin, publicité pour l'élection du plus beau modèle lors de la Nuit de Montparnasse du 3 juillet 1948." is just a poster for an evening event in Montparnasse.
 * So, little of the above qualifies as WP:SIGCOV, and the last three are really not even RS. The "Pornography and Silence: Culture's Revenge Against Nature" might be OK but I cannot see what it says. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Also found this one - Book.

What I am trying to say here is that lack of online sources doesn't always mean the subject is not notable. Mentions of him in 2 books can be a sign of notability. Alternatively draftifying could be an option. Less Unless (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If we cannot find reliable sources, they are not notable by our standards.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete He drew some erotic illustrations for a book but that's about all that can be said definitively. There are no references that meet basic notability standard calling for in-depth discussion from reliable, independent sources. I see that the original article was taken from a website selling a book that was illustrated by Tauzin--not reliable or independent. Also, I question the copyright status of illustration used in this article. His work was published in 1930--wouldn't that still be under copyright? Glendoremus (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:29, 13 April 2020 (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.