Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On-Line Picasso Project


 * 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

On-Line Picasso Project

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

I prodded this because it had no third party sources that establish notability. The prod tag was removed by a SPA and no sources were added, so here we are. This is an academic project / website, which seems to have no independent sources of note. It does get a few hits on google scholar, but those which are non-trivial mentions are by those that run the project, particularly E Mallen. As such the topic does not meet the general notability guideline and the article should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to the article on Picasso, to the Commemoration and legacy section.  He  iro  19:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, everybody interested in reliable and comprehensive information on Picasso uses this academic information site, notably galleries, auction houses, academic institutions, and, yes, some people working for Wikipedia, including me, for referencing works of Picasso. It is already the main refererence with respect to Picasso, being the most complete, in addition of being free and illustrated. Deleting this project would just prove ignorance on the side of those who propose to do so. It should not be mixed up with Picasso himself, having nothing to do with him. However, there should be a reference to this article in the Picasso lemma, of course. It might be augmented, though. For example, it is interesting that Picasso's heirs tried to stop this academic project for copyright reasons by the end of the last century, which immediately resulted in a big online supporting action for reasons of informational and academic freedom. Finally, after a year or two, the case was settled out of court. I'm just recalling from memory, so this is not ready for inclusion yet.--WernerPopken (talk) 08:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it is a valuable resource, but we need to be able to write a verifiable article about it for it to be on Wikipedia. If there are no sources, we can't do that and we should delete it. - MrOllie (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 13:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Comment Untill some sources come uo and demonstrate notability then I would say delete. If some can be prodiced backing up the claims then it woujld be keep. the Ball in the defenders court.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 7 November 2010 (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.