Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedro Sandoval


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Pedro Sandoval

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I made attempts to clean up this article, but noticed issues with a history of COI edits. This appears to have been created as WP:PROMO, and it has a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Many of the claims within the body of the BLP article (that have been removed) were false statements without citation. Jooojay (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Jooojay (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - numerous examples exist of significant coverage in independent reliable sources:, , , , , , , , , . Furthermore, many of these same sources are already referenced in the article, so I'm very confused as to why the nominator thinks there is insufficient significant coverage. The fact that the coverage is in Spanish takes away nothing. There are many Spanish speaking editors on en.wiki, myself included; for that matter, many of them are native speakers and speak the language far better than I do. Furthermore, as Google Translate has continued to improve, even an editor with zero Spanish knowledge can at least get the basic gist of things, although they won't be able to grasp the details. Now that significant coverage has been demonstrated, the remaining issues cited in the nominator's rationale are not grounds for deletion. Deletion is not cleanup, and the article's remaining issues are best solved through editing the article, not deleting it. TNT doesn't apply here either - in my experience it's only warranted when dealing with articles so incomprehensible that it's a waste of time to try and improve it through editing. That is not the case here. CJK09 (talk) 01:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC) struck per analysis below.
 * Comment - I agree with most of what you said here, if you take a look at the talk page, the edit history, as well as the excellent research below by , you can see the issue goes beyond the surface level. I don't think any amount of editing will make this person notable, which is why I nominated for deletion. Jooojay (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep I saw two good Spanish sources in a search, and there is (at least) one museum collection in addition to the sources cited by .ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Spanish version of the article cites these sources that are not used in the English version:, , , , , , Somof those are clearly unusable, like blogspot, or dubious, like the florence biennale, but others are worth considering. like elmundo or revistadearte. Vexations (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per above discussion, seems it passes SIGCOV, not likely a promo. Drat8sub (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per argument made by mentioned below. Drat8sub (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * delete I arrived at this article because of his participation in the vanity exhibition Florence Biennale. and I looked into the claims made in the article and found that they were unverifiable, to say the least. We discussed our research into subject on the talk page, and agreed to bring the page here for discussion.


 * Working from the artists’ own CV I tried to verify the claims of collections, as that would most clearly satisfy NARTIST. I could not. All I could find was one painting he personally gave to the Boca Raton museum. The rest were not verified:


 * Most importantly, the claim to be in the Guggenheim is not verified. Seeing a claim like that which is not verified, makes me very skeptical of the rest. Same with the MoCA Mallorca, the Vatican and the Bogotá Museum of Modern Art.
 * Several of the museum collections he claims to be in don't seem to exist:
 * Museum of Contemporary Art in Osaka. Japan (there is a national museum, which does not hold his work and a Osaka Contemporary Art Center which has no web presence in en or jp)
 * Museum of Contemporary Art in Philadelphia, USA (there is a Institute of Contemporary Art, Philadelphia but it has no collection)
 * Museum of Contemporary Art in Milán. Italia (proposed in 2011, but never built )
 * Museum of Contemporary Art in Lima. Perú (a ficitonal museum )


 * I did see the sources that and  noted but found then to be fairly routine, and part of the promotional process of showing work.  Of the links noted above, the book is self published, many are interviews (and not in RS). For me it comes down to the El Mundo article, which is about him painting a backdrop for a fashion show. And the not so impartial El Imparcial article which is clearly derived from press release material because it repeats the false claims from his own autobiographical materials: inclusion in the permanent collection of the Guggenheim, and the Osaka museum (which does not exist). I don’t think we can consider that source reliable if it doesn’t engage in the most basic fact checking. It also repeats the art dealers kind of absurdly promotional language. The second El Mundo article repeats these false claims as well.  were there others you found that exceed this?


 * And the Pro Arte y Cultura Group award is bogus as well: he catalyzed the creation of the award, and serves as the director of Pro Arte y Cultura Group The award itself is completely not notable — I couldn’t find any references to it aside from his biography.


 * For me, the overriding problem is that everything is built on unverifiable claims. Claims that start with the artist, and Are repeated by the sources without fact checking, proving their unreliability. That combined with his involvement in vanity exhibitions, tips the scale for me. The claims look like they might meet NARTIST but the claims themselves Crumble when you attempt to verify them. Obviously if these claims were verified, then he would meet NARTIST, but the protocol here at Articles for Deletion is to require verifiability. Theredproject (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete changing to this !vote, in light of the excellent research done by Theredproject. The articles I saw were in Spanish and looked good enough, but if the artist is trying to pass off fake collections I will up my skepticism and reuqire the existence clearer sourcing than exists.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Switching to delete based on 's excellent analysis. I will admit that I have a bit of a hair trigger with AfDs relating to subjects mostly known in foreign language countries for which significant coverage appears to exist in said language. I've seen so many AfD nominations where the nom clearly didn't even bother to search for non-English sources (clearly not the case here) that it's become kind of automatic for me. I'll definitely take note and be more careful to examine article history, talk page, etc, going forward. CJK09 (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for considering the analysis I offered. I want you to know that I do agree re: non-English sources, and often post comments here opposing to closing discussions BEFORE someone can do a proper analysis of the sources -- especially when these sources are languages that machine translation isn't so good at. Theredproject (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete based on research by, finding that many claims are unverifiable; and the nominators findings of COI, PROMO. Netherzone (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. and the unreliable claims. Alex-h (talk) 07:52, 29 May 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.