Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P. Mansaram


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 08:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

P. Mansaram

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of an artist, with no evidence of reliable source coverage about him in media shown at all: the "references" here are entirely primary sources, such as a lecture he gave and unpublished interviews personally conducted by the creator of this article. However, Wikipedia requires sources to be published for proper verification that they actually say what they're claimed to have said, and nobody can ever be "sourced" by simply interviewing them personally or by listening to them give a speech -- so none of the sourcing here is acceptable, and nothing claimed in the text constitutes an automatic WP:NARTIST pass in the absence of any acceptable sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. -- HindWikiConnect 23:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The fact, article does not cite proper sources does not mean he does not have claim for notability. Exhibiting and being part of permanent collection of Royal Ontario Museum grants article without any doubts. We just need to find proper links and update the article. I also found mentions of him exhibiting in other public galleries. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, exhibiting at a major museum still isn't an automatic notability freebie for an artist in and of itself — it still has to be supported by reliable source coverage about him, not just "mentions", before it counts toward notability. An artist's notability is conditional on his sourceability — no artist can make any notability claim that exempts him from having to be sourced properly. So it's not a case of "keep it and then maybe we'll find some better sources" — finding the better sources comes first and then maybe we can keep it if the sourcing is improved enough, not vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, this is the source I've added to the article and it was quite easy to find. Press Release from the Royal Ontario Museum stating they have him in their collection and that they exhibiting them. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What would be required to make that exhibition a notability claim is not a press release from the museum, but a newspaper assigning a journalist to attend and write about the exhibition. To support notability, sources have to be independent of the claim, not press releases from people or organizations promoting themselves. An exhibition isn't notable until media, independent of the artist's or the museum's own PR teams, choose to write and publish their own unaffiliated content about it. Bearcat (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * May I ask if information from Museum about inclusion to permanent collection is not satisfying WP:ARTIST? From my humble opinion it quite makes it a pass. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've also searched for him as Panchal Mansaram and found he also included to permanent collection of National Gallery of Canada -, as well as exhibiting in Art Gallery of Mississauga - . Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Arthistorian, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Bearcat is very nice but, with respect, in this case he does entirely misunderstands the way WP:ARTIST works in terms of permanent collections. For exhibitions, yes, there need to be RS. For permanent collections all that is needed is evidence. The Mississauga entry is actually a permanent collection. 104.163.155.42 (talk) 07:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete we need something more than press releases to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Totally out of curiosity, and AGF, did you conduct a search before coming to your conclusion above, or did you simply glance at the article?104.163.153.162 (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEP Does anyone do WP:BEFORE anymore, or are people just going by the "look" of the article? WP:ARTIST is met:
 * National Gallery of Canada permanent collection
 * Art Gallery of Mississauga permanent collection (read the text)
 * The collaborative piece with Marshall Mcluhan (!!!) in the ROM makes "several museums". 104.163.155.42 (talk) 07:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC) Keep In addition to what 104.163.155.42 and Arthistorian1977 have stated about museum collections (per WP:ARTIST), I have found the following sources: Canadian Art, Times of India (brief but independent), tecnoartenews.com, mybindi.com, artdaily.org; and the following books: The Critical Vision: Selected Writings, A. S. Raman, 1993, Indian Contemporary Art: Post Independence, Vadehra Art Gallery (catalogue) 2010, Studies in Modern Indian Art: A Collection of Essays, Ratan Parimoo, 1975, Graphic Art in India Since 1850: An Exhibition, The Akademi (catalogue), 1985, Reimagining India: Unlocking the Potential of Asia’s Next Superpower edited by Clay Chandler, Adil Zainulbhai, 2013, P. Mansaram Galerie de Drie Hendricken, 1964 (appears to be a monograph). Some of these are mentions, others more substantial, but combined with the museum collections, other museum exhibitions (international) and the work with McLuhan (widely exhibited), this easily passes WP:GNG.  freshacconci  (✉) 17:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * good job, thank you. The art itself is pretty cheesy, but the artist is, as you have shown, very notable for that cheesiness.104.163.153.162 (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2017 (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.