Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Pivar

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Pivar

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

Procedural nomination: Article created by User:Chemistryfan, a confirmed sockpuppet, someone who was overly friendly to Big Bang denialists and Darwin deniers. Article could be fine, article could be a PR-piece, and this guy could be notable or or he could be not notable. I'm nominating so we can have the debate and properly vet, cleanup, or delete these articles as appropriate. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to meet WP:PROF. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)WP:N states, "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right" and the box on the right specifically mentions Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) (WP:PROF). So what is nominally a delete vote mentions no policy, and the guideline mentioned fails to consider that WP:GNG must also fail before notability fails, and even if notability fails, the remedy is not deletion but a merge of the reliable material. In summary, this is not a valid !vote. Unscintillating (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears notable for (inadvertent) involvement on NY Academy of Arts scandal and is written about in NY publications. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination is incoherent as there is no such thing as a procedural AFD of this sort - AFD is not cleanup and articles should not be nominated because you don't like the author. Please see our editing policy which tells us that improvement of new articles is ordinary and routine editing. Warden (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This cannot be a speedy keep regardless of any problems in the original nom, because someone independent has advanced a delete vote. Kevin (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They might change their mind when they realise that the subject is quite notable, being discussed in detail in sources such as this. As a major player in the NY art scene and associate of Andy Warhol, the subject appears in thousands of books. This nomination states clearly that it is based only upon an antipathy for the author, not from any knowledge of the topic or particulars of the article. It should therefore be closed per WP:SK #2.5 "nominations which are so erroneous that they indicate that the nominator has not even read the article in question". Warden (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep (ec)The nominal delete !vote is not a valid !vote. As for the nomination, it makes no sense—being a sockpuppet makes no difference unless the editor is banned. This AfD should be speedily kept so that the nominator can make a speedy and proper re-nomination, then the editors that participate here will not need to each repeat the work that should have been done by the nominator in preparing this AfD. As Warden notes, the nominator may also realize that there is no need to spend more time on this article. Unscintillating (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the point in closely a discussion, solely to reopen it? And for the record, the sockpuppets (and sockmaster) are all indef blocked. You're arguing over technicalities without any concern for the actual article, or understanding the context of the nomination. Get real. If the guy is indeed notable, then the article should be kept. If he's not, it should be deleted. This is not rocket science. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the article can be G5'ed, there is no need for AfD. If the article can be G5'ed, then we don't want to keep the article, even if the topic is notable, sourced, etc. I've already responded to the other comments. Unscintillating (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- as Kevin points out, there has been a good-faith delete !vote. Speedy keep is therefore off the table. Reyk _YO! 00:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the edits by the banned user from the article. Whether the article is notable or not is an entirely different issue so the AfD should be allowed to run to completion. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you do that? Now the history makes no sense at all, and it makes it look like I created the article! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This selective deletion is a violation of WP:Copyrights, per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material. Please restore the deleted edits or G5 the entire history. Flatscan (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi. I have no opinion on the article or the G5 issues, but I saw the speedy deletion request and fixed the attribution. :) I wasn't going to remove the G5 request (but let somebody else work it out), but after following the AfD tag, I see that there are "keep" votes here, so this is not uncontested. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I guess It's hard to say how notable his later career is, but his art collecting and involvement with Warhol generated notoriety enough. Mangoe (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The keep vote says that his connection to Andy Warhol proves his notability; this is covered in exactly five words in the article. Hence, at best a WP:COATRACK for his later, non-notable fringe theories; at worst, this is a WP:ONEEVENT non-entity who had a minor connection to a more famous person. 86.176.222.119 (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has good references about Pivar and his work, Pivar is mentioned in a mainstream American newspaper and a number of popular magazines. Clearly notable. 212.219.63.252 (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification of my original !vote. Not notable as a scientist. Possibly notable as an art collector, discussion should be about that. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's a notable figure in the New York art world. Indeed, it's pretty obvious that his theories are related to his interest in 19th century academic art, and derive from that cultural context. A direct connection can be made between his promotion of the tradition of Charles Bell etc and his theories of morphology, however that would be OR. Paul B (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable in the art world. Yopienso (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2011 (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.