Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athanasio Celia (2nd nomination)

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. Consensus is that the subject is not notable. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Athanasio Celia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. The ref-bombing is largely to uploaded translations to archive.org, which are unverifiable UGC. [1] is a trivial mention of him. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This artist has not received significant coverage from a reliable source. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable artist.--Darwinek (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As painter he is clearly notable, because he is the founder of a new painting style. As art expert he is clearly notable, because his reports were of global interest. And as author he is clearly notable, because his books are registered in university libraries. 4evayoung77 (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nomination. If he is "clearly notable", then where are the reliable secondary sources on him and his work (besides press-release like articles)? Furthermore, having someone's books registered in (any) library means just that the books are there, nothing else. ——Chalk19 (talk) 06:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Seems to be part of a cross-wiki promotional effort. Celia has got some trivial references as he was involved as "an expert" in the authenticity verification of a supposedly Van Gogh sketchbook (see this) found by the Greek writer on astrology, occult themes, and esotericism, Doretta Peppa. "[T]he Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam has discredited" (cf. "Experts fall out over Van Gogh's 'last painting'", The Guardian, May 19, 2008) the Peppa's sketchbook. ——Chalk19 (talk) 06:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS2. In the article it is written that "[h]is study on the notebook was published in a chapter of the book “The Notebook of Vincent”, for which Athanasio Celia also wrote the preface" (cf. the Greek edition, and the international edition of the book). That's true, but this book is a self-publication of Dorreta Peppa, the founder/owner of the supposedly Van Gohg sketchbook, since her husband Giorgos Alexelis is the owner of the EPOS Press (see in this article in the mainsteam Greek daily Kathimerini: "ο Γιώργος Αλεξέλης των εκδόσεων Επος [συνεκδότης του τίτλου και σύζυγος της συγγραφέως]"), a publishing house specialising in printing books by Peppas and Celia! (see [2]) ——Chalk19 (talk) 07:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this was an indirect question to me, then please listen to his interviews with BBC and Reuters and read the corresponding studies which include the information you need. There is a list of museums (ref. 54) which can provide catalogues on request. And in regard of books, it really matters in which library a book is adopted...4evayoung77 (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't think that is right for a wikipedian to try to diminish a really serious person through third parties...4evayoung77 (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

we do not try to diminish anyone; we try to establish notability by third party sources. it is the way things are done here, based on a policy called WP:Notability. (If you do not like it, we have a policy for that too: WP:IDONTLIKEIT.) We also give no value to the fact that a library has soemone's books. The current notability policy kind of works, seeing as Wikipedia is the fourth or fifth most popular website in the world.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable and no reliable secondary sources-Kalogeropoulos (talk) 08:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Important notice. The first deletion of the subject was 12 years ago - in 2007 . And the article was deleted, because an editor had wrote it without to use any references at all. This notice is very important, because the first deletion's record is now blanked - I don't know who has blanked it and why. But without the present notice could easily came up the impression that a similar article was deleted, like the very well documented present article. 4evayoung77 (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

that was just a courtesy blanking of the last page version. You can see the discussion in the page history.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That link was necessary from the beginning of the voting, and because of that - in my opinion - the current process isn't valid (this is not a personal mention against you or against any other editor). I suppose that editors who are active also in the Greek Wikipedia, wouldn't have vote against the article, if they knew about that link from the beginning. 4evayoung77 (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Based on the promotional intent, I ignored the article sources and did a general search. I saw one Reuters article where he was quoted. Four pages of Google results later, all I am seeing is unreliable vanity-published wikis and books for sale pages.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is it possible to ignore dozens of references of the article? 4evayoung77 (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete The Reuters interview isn't enough, and all the auction results don't get us anywhere for notability. But they do indicate that he probably has had an exhibition record that may have generated enough critical reception. I did a search of academic databases, and came up with nothing. Claiming "Verticalism" is a "movement" needs some legit WP:RS to say the least. If we were to keep it, it would need a WP:TNT. --Theredproject (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With all the respect Professor, he had some more interviews which were broadcasted globally (ref.26, 27, 28). And I think that there is no claim in the article that "Verticalism" is a movement, rather that it is "a new form of artistic expression" which relies on a new artistic theory (ref. 8). That theory is published in his fourth publication (p.25-26). 4evayoung77 (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@4evayoung77: Stop hounding every single person who is posting here. Apparently your user profile says you are a district attorney; please stop cross-examining everyone here. Wikipedia:Wikilawyering is bad form, and more importantly it is doing the exact opposite of your goal.--Theredproject (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no goal, I only defend the article. But to punish the subject, because you maybe don't like my identity makes no sense. 4evayoung77 (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4evayoung77, I second the suggestion to hold back on further comments. You have made your position very clear. Wikiepdia is a volunteer project and this is a very tiny portion of the overall business at hand. Wasting everyone's time by badgering them repeatedly is considered to be disruptive editing. We heard you, and the closing admin will assess the arguments made by everyone. Consider yourself warned that your hounding of every comment is disruptive.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.