Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aloys Zötl
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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The result was nom withdrawn, speedy keep. Dlohcierekim 23:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Aloys Zötl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
prod was contested. I am unclear as to why this artist is considered notable. Unless article can be improved to the point that his notability is made clear to those of us not familiar with his work, I suggest article be deleted as nn artist. If he is truly notable, someone should be able to tell us why. Postcard Cathy (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nom withdrawn, request speedy keep.Postcard Cathy (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; there are few sources in english but he was known quite well as a painter of fantastic natural history scenes. He was discussed in length by Andre Breton in Aloys Zötlin in Surrealism and Painting. See http://www.iobabooks.com/books/3810315.html. The article could and should be greatly expanded; not deleted. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 07:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As I said when I removed the prod tag, he has an entry in a print encyclopedia, which is generally accepted as a sign of notability. There are plenty more sources available from Google Books. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I understand what Phil is saying BUT (of course there is always a but): The purpose of an encyclopedia is to tell you what is notable about the person, not send you to another source to find out if he is or is not notable. Other sources, the way I see it, are if you are interested enough in the subject to learn more than an encyclopedia can give you. If there is notability about the subject at hand, it should be in the article. Even if it is summarized in only one or two sentences. No one has taken the time or the effort to do that here. If it isn't said, I can't help but wonder if he really is as notable as you two say he is. Postcard Cathy (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Such sources and statements have been added with more to follow. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 02:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I understand what Phil is saying BUT (of course there is always a but): The purpose of an encyclopedia is to tell you what is notable about the person, not send you to another source to find out if he is or is not notable. Other sources, the way I see it, are if you are interested enough in the subject to learn more than an encyclopedia can give you. If there is notability about the subject at hand, it should be in the article. Even if it is summarized in only one or two sentences. No one has taken the time or the effort to do that here. If it isn't said, I can't help but wonder if he really is as notable as you two say he is. Postcard Cathy (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With recent additions, I am clearer now on why this artist is important and would not contest the decision to keep this article. Postcard Cathy (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2009 (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.