Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomas Lasansky


 * 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, after the relisting reasonable arguments were raised that the subject meets WP:BASIC, which were not contested. The discussion was already relisted so yet another relisting probably doesn't add anything - if the post-first relist arguments are contested it ideally should happen via another AfD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Tomas Lasansky

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I still confirm my PROD regardless of whether the user was "unconvinced" as there's nothing at all suggestive of independent notability and substance. SwisterTwister  talk  17:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Three GBooks results with the contents not entirely visible there, but one describes him as a "brilliant technician and obvious master of the complexities of various intaglio processes". Other coverage:, , , , , , , , . Let me remind you of your PROD rationale: "No exhibitions or collections, the listed sources are still not convincing of establishing convincing independent notability, searches and examinations have simply found nothing else better." You appear not to have found these sources (which include plenty 'better' as well as plenty of evidence of many exhibitions). Why is that? --Michig (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Note on sources. The publisher 4PeaksPress, which produced the book on Lasansky is Lasansky's own vanity press, existing solely to produce that book. See the address here for the publisher, and here for the artist himself: same address. The other sources (one other book in the article and the several mentioned above) are mostly not independent of the artist. Gallery publications by themselves cannot be reliable sources as they are published to promote an artist exhibiting at the gallery. Likewise, government listings are not WP:RS. The press coverage is extremely limited, with only a couple going beyond passing mention. In short, based on available sources, this fails notability requirements. I will remain neutral until I've done a bit more digging around. freshacconci talk to me  01:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * delete. Clearly failed WP:GNG and I couldn't find any evidence of passing WP:CREATIVE. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Per my comments above, I cannot find anything that satisfies WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. He's an artist who has exhibited his work. That does not make him notable. The most significant exhibition is the Smite Museum of Art, which is a university gallery. Not bad, but not significant by itself. The only third-party sources that go beyond a passing mention are local press. Again, not bad but by themselves do not approach the threshold required. freshacconci talk to me  19:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 03:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep – Meets WP:BASIC on a weak level. The subject has received in-depth, significant coverage in two sources (The Aspen Times, South Bend Tribune), and coverage beyond passing mentions in the University of Notre Dame's Snite Museum of Art. For what it's worth, the subject is also mentioned at the Oxford Dictionary of American Art and Artists (link). North America1000 10:44, 13 August 2016 (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.