Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JC Jacinto (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 keep. Consensus here is that the topic meets notability standards. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JC Jacinto

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards (WP:NOTE). Pcwendland (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the previous nomination was closed a fortnight ago as no-consensus because nobody bothered to address the sources I put forward. WP:BEFORE suggests they should at least be addressed in this nomination if it is going to be renominated within a couple of weeks. Any reason those sources shouldn't allow the subject to pass WP:GNG? Stalwart111 22:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was going by WP:ARTIST:

"Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. (No)
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. (No)
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. (No)
The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument (No), (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition (The "significance" is debatable), (c) has won significant critical attention (Doesn't look like it), or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums (No)." Pcwendland (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but a subject doesn't need to pass WP:ARTIST if he or she already passes WP:GNG. In searching for sources to see if the subject passes WP:ARTIST you should have come across those listed previously and more. Once significant coverage in multiple reliable sources has been established, secondary (industry-specific) criteria are moot. Are they not? Stalwart111 03:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Editorial problems get in the way of a proper decision. The list of exhibitions is overly detailed and shouldn't be there. References aren't properly cited. --OKNoah (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? If the subject passes WP:GNG (based on sources available) then a determination as to notability is easy. Cleaning up the article is a secondary responsibility. Stalwart111 03:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by Stalwart111. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per User:SarahStierch's comments on the first AFD. All but the first of the sources that Stalwart111 added the first AFD page are not reliable, or are now deadlinks: they are listings of exhibitions, not reviews. Like Sarah, I am a specialist in contemporary art generally, and can offer that analysis of the links. If Jacinto continues to exhibit and generate interest he may be able to pass WP:GNG in the future.--Theredproject (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are the sources in question and my assessment of them in red:

JC Jacinto & Renz Baluyot opposing strengths by Pinggot Zulueta (Manila Bulletin – 11 November 2013)

Yahoo News syndication of an article published by Manila Bulletin, which is "the Philippines' largest broadsheet newspaper by circulation". Definitely a reliable independent source, and it's coverage of the subject is sufficient to assert notability per the GNG.

Contemporary Art by JC Jacinto by Paul Viluda (Cruzine, 5 September 2013)

No indication that this is a reliable source.

Gallery News: Pandy Aviado at The Crucible (The Philippine Star, 13 January 2014)

Appears to be an official gallery listing in a newspaper. It's a primary source and suitable for verification only.

DFA art exhibit opens today (ABS-CBNnews.com, 27 February 2012)

An article published by ABS-CBN. Definitely a reliable independent source, and it's coverage of the subject is sufficient to assert notability per the GNG.

Exhibition Detail

Appears to be an official gallery publication. It's a primary source and suitable for verification only.

Strange Skins and Phosphene

Appears to be an official gallery publication. It's a primary source and suitable for verification only.

As you can see, both the Manila Bulletin article and the ABS-CBN article are sufficient to assert notability. All but one of the others are official primary sources and are suitable for verifying information in the article. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also none of the references are dead links, so I don't know what you were talking about there. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found above and in the previous nomination. And don't you think it's too soon to nominate again? 舎利弗 (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Stalwart111's improvements, You should wait a lot lot longer than a month before renominating!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:22, 28 May 2014 (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.