Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Rappaport


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Richard Rappaport

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Massive self-promotional autobiography written by the subject (IP from Pittsburgh). I'm not seeing anything but minor passing mentions, and an interview in a free Pittsburgh newspaper, when I search on Google web/news/books. Softlavender (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Even disregarding the COI issues here, the subject clearly has not received significant coverage and so fails WP:GNG. Highway 89 (talk) 03:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  03:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. I concur with the nom and Highway 89 that the sources do not exist to establish notability. There is a mildly notable Richard Rappaport for which some sources exist, but he is a forensic psychiatrist. This Rappaport is not notable. SALT also because an article so carefully and intentionally crafted to create a narrative of importance is bound to be back.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There is also this, which will probably also need to be deleted. (edit: now deleted by DrMies) ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And also see the 348 Rappapport paintings on Commons. I often wonder if artists realize that licensing their works Creative Commons to get them on wikipedia means they are allowing all manner of derivative works? Maybe that's the idea. Of the ten links in the article, nine are generic links to websites that fail verification. In short, the article provides one actual source form the ten listed. I am not sure how he got into Benezit (see below) in the absence of critical coverage.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The 412 Rappapport paintings were uploaded by his friend and SPA, who is "helping, along with several others, an artist/friend Richard Rappaport with his Wikipedia profile. Richard's a good friend and great artist so also visit the gallery of his paintings on Wikimeia Commons." -- Softlavender (talk) 07:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Would seem to meet WP:BASIC. Mentions of the subject, including in The New York Times, can be found when searching "Richard Rappaport art". Subject is a student of Robert Lepper (teacher of Andy Warhol and others) and has written a book about him. That being said, the article needs a thorough sweeping of peacockery and irrelevant detail. StonyBrook (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The New York Times article is about another artist. All it says is that Rappaport went to school with the other artist. Being a student of someone notable does not make him notable, per WP:INHERITED.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Understood, but there is the coverage in the Pittsburgh newspaper referenced by Softlavender that mentions his decades of activity. It's not much, but it's enough to establish basic notability. He appears to be more than just a student of Lepper, but also a pedagogue of sorts who explains his methodology. StonyBrook (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * One or even two articles in the local paper is not enough to establish GNG. The article was edited to its current state by the artist (under this account, self-declared a number of times), so what we see here is largely a self-published autobiography. What is almost entirely missing is external independent critical attention. Tens of millions of people are teachers. Being one means little notability-wise if there is no coverage.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * A puff-piece in a local free (pennysaver-type) publication does not at all contribute to any notability. Softlavender (talk) 00:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Rappaport has an article in Benezit Dictionary of Artists. https://doi.org/10.1093/benz/9780199773787.article.B00148973 Vexations (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC) Update: Revised to delete. I have not been able to find any other sources, and the subjects exhibition record is not indicative of substantial critical attention. Delete. Vexations (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, the entirety of the article is "American, 20th century, male. Active in France. Painter. Richard Rappaport studied at the Carnegie Institute of Technology in Pittsburgh. He set up in Paris. He prefers pictures of large dimensions, and his Expressionist style canvases often reveal his social preoccupations in an allusive or explicit manner.", so does not seem nearly enough of an entry to indicate automatic notability. Galobtter (pingó mió) 22:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's actually an extract of the article. You don't get access to the entire thing without a Oxford subscription. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm accessing the article through an institutional network with an Oxford subscription. The "extract" shown to everyone is the entire article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 22:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - looks to be a likely WP:NARTIST failure, as the sources cited are not in-depth enough to establish the subject's notability. More could always exist, but the comments above seem to imply most of the coverage about Rappaport could be seen as being more closely linked to other, more notable artists. In addition to these points, the article is being used to promote the subject, and thus has been created and maintained in contradiction to WP:NOTADVOCACY. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete this piece of WP:SELFPROMOTION. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per policy. WP:VANITY and WP:PROMO applies. ——  SerialNumber  54129  21:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete this text of evidently promotional nature. -The Gnome (talk) 06:33, 28 July 2019 (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.