Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul georges


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Paul georges

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

NN Artist per WP:Creative Wperdue (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete. Notability not asserted, a sweeping claim to being "famous" doesn't count. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability issue now addressed, although the article would be less deletable if it said what Paul Georges was actually famous for. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply I agree, but the speedy deletion nomination from another editor was already denied. Wperdue (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue


 * Delete. No notability asserted. I'd like to know what the editor who denied the speedy on the grounds that notability was asserted saw that I did not. I42 (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply I would have declined the speedy, too. At that time, the article specifically said he was a famous painter, which is a claim of importance. Remember, importance is a lower standard than notability.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  17:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete as it stands . Bio and Context. I too can't see any real assertion of notability, unless no-one else paints Istanbul. What those references are supposed to prove is beyond me. (I can't get into one because it insist on Macromedia Flash and I refuse to use Flash.) (I consider it unnecessary and a sign of unimaginative web design.) Peridon (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep now this is a different article about a notable person. I found quite a bit about this one while looking for the other one. Peridon (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No notability established. Hekerui (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It appears there is a highly notable artist by the name of Paul Georges: . Google news archive search:, and some mention in google scholar articles.  I just replaced the article's text with a stub for this artist.  I say Strong Keep.  Cazort (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply I'm not sure you can just completely change the text of the entry to be about a completely different artist by the same name in the middle of an AFD discussion as you appear to have done. Wperdue (talk) 04:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue
 * Since the consensus appeared to be that speedy deletion was due, replacing it wasn't bad (he just had to make sure he made note of it here). I'm still not convinced we should keep the new version. While the new painter has an NY Times obituary, the article text still doesn't explain why he's notable. - Mgm|(talk) 11:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep new stub. would be a good source for this.   might provide something useful.
 * Keep The added New York Times article is quite resourceful. His art is exhibited in major museums, so he seems to have sufficient notability for wikipedia. – sgeureka t•c 12:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - As of this revision, the article is about a different person, who is notable. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  17:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep this Paul Georges. Not the non-notable original subject of the article.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep notable and well documented artist, the article needs work...Modernist (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as it now is. Clearly notable from NYT obit. Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2009 (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.