Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan Ramniceanu


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Stefan Ramniceanu

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Every "reference" is to Râmniceanu's own website. By definition, that fails the "independent coverage" test of WP:GNG. If the single-purpose account who created this promotional piece wants it to be kept, some kind of evidence of notability outside the artist's site will have to be presented. - Biruitorul Talk 14:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. A reference does not have to be online to be valid. The references appear to establish notability. The article may require rewriting to remove a possible copyright violation. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * They may "appear" to establish notability, but that's not a terribly convincing metric. This, for instance, is from an exhibition catalogue, which is not exactly an independent source.
 * And yes, I'd say we'd need a rewrite - the article as it stands is an exact copy of this. Even if the single-purpose account who created the article owns the text (as he claims, and which wouldn't surprise me), we're not here to promote people or allow them to promote themselves. If he's in fact notable, we need a text written by someone other than the man himself. But his notability remains unproven. In-depth, independent coverage remains elusive. - Biruitorul Talk 21:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This shows he might be notable, however, the mentioned TV and radio shows don't link to real videos or files. I've removed the CSD tag per the talk page and WP:AGF, but I too think it should be rewritten. The subject seems to be marginally notable, see this review (Arta - Revista de arte vizuale) or some hits at G-books. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Gentlemen, I thank you for your contributions and would like to clarify a few points if I may:
 * To follow-up on Vejvančický's last contribution, most of the TV shows mentioned on this page are actually hosted on this page or on this page.
 * All citations in this article are extracted from texts by art critics and/or art historians (most of them being "notable" enough to have a wikipedia page) that is to say experts highly knowledgeable in the subject and independent from their subject/the artist: as such, they shall be considered as highly reliable sources. Their authors are not "single-purpose" or "single-artist" authors - To pick up on what was said by Eastmain, a reference does not have to be online to be valid and I see no objective reason which could explain why an article written by an art critic or historian should be less reliable as any text published somewhere else. In the same vein, I see no objective reason why this reference should be granted more credit than any of the other 26 references which are available here (which are just a selection of publications). Reading your contribution, I cannot help but think that things would have been very different if these very same texts had been published in online magazines -- anyone is free to disagree with the points of view expressed by their authors, but I see no reason to challenge their independency just because they happen to be "hosted" on the artist's website and/or were published in printed exhibition catalogues -- the artist (or the gallery, as the case may be) will pay to have a catalogue published but does NOT pay art critics for their contributions. At the end of the day, what matters most is who said what - which implies obviously to read the articles - and not only to compute the number of hyperlinks and/or google rankings.
 * My understanding is that search engine statistics are not a suitable criteria of the "notability" see here. Please correct me if I'm wrong but if we disregard a content because of its support (e.g. has not been published online), we run the risk to place too much confidence into search engine statistics: in other words, online popularity is not the same as the concept of "notability". SEO has little to do with notability.... It has to do with technical abilities.
 * Lastly, let me tell you I'm happy that you jumped in: drafting articles about living personalities is a difficult exercise indeed. The balance is hard to strike and this might be the reason why so many articles about living artists on Wikipedia are unfortunately still confined to a list of exhibitions that fails to give any color to their artwork and life. So I thank you for considering to redraft this article - I guess this is what Wikipedia is about. Gatsbylemagnifique (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 04:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Kudos on the artist bio to the article creator. This article's subject appears to pass WP:Artist. All other issues are simply not grounds for deletion. There are outstanding CPVIO issues with the pictures but I will be glad to help sort them out via OTRS if the artist agrees to release them via CS. Regarding the sourcing - it is patently obvious that these can be improved. Just because the artist web site hosts/preserves materials does not render them self-published. Generally we consider a person an authority on himself - the issue in such cases is WP:N. However these are only a future possibility since no specific neutrality issues have been raised here BO &#124; Talk 15:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - highly self-promotional article that will need re-writing. However, if he's been the subject of several lengthy TV programmes (hard to prove) and reviewed in România Literară, he may just about meet WP:GNG. Because his activities were pre-internet, sources are likely to be offline, though I can see no book references at all ...which you'd expect if he is as important as he says! Sionk (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2013 (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.