Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Blazek

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. It looks like the notability claims based on galleries in which his work supposedly appears have been rebutted. Sandstein 20:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Blazek

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A search does not provide the SIGCOV needed for notability. Article sources are either not independent or trivial, or links to Amazon for books he has illustrated. The museum collections are of suspect quality, for example this Maritime Museum page lists his works with prices. GNG and WP:CREATIVE fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hard time keeping up with the deletion nominations of ThatMontrealIP. May I remind them that there is no deadline, that most of the artists' biographies are rather benign, and that slowing down a bit would be appreciated? To the issue at hand,Blazek appears to have received some critical attention. The Mystic Seaport is a notable museum. It's not remotely the kind of work I like, and Marine Art is a bit of a niche, but Blazek appears to have work in Museum Collections (the Delaware Art Museum) and has received some awards, although I'm not sure just how notable those are. Vexations (talk) 01:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations, I checked and I've nominated 31 articles for AfD since September 10. It's a quite a few, but I started to notice how many non-notable artist articles we have, some of which were egregiously promotional. Of the 31 nominated, 19 have been deleted, 11 are still open, and one was speedy keep. So these are by and large good nominations. Editing is entirely voluntary, so don't worry about keeping up! AFDs without adequate discussion get relisted. There is really no timeline to improving quality.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There appears to be coverage of the artist - [1][2] It is not the job of the nominator to assess the quality of his painting. Hzh (talk) 11:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I assess the quality of his painting? I questioned the quality of the museums, not the paintings.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You said "museum collections", not the museum, and linked to his works. Seems to me you are talking about paintings. Hzh (talk) 13:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

like I said, I questioned the quality of the museums, not the paintings..ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite what is claimed in the article as an "internationally recognized" artist, I doubt he is more than a notable local artist. However, given the sources found and him being a notable artist in his genre, he might just about qualify under WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 11:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that his having art hanging at the Smithsonian is notable. Markvs88 (talk) 00:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. However there is no source for that claim, and I have searched high and low. Feel free to provide one. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

? The source is in the article. [3]. Markvs88 (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what the source means by "American Art Library of the Smithsonian Institution" exactly. Is it the American Art and Portrait Gallery Library [4]? If so, I'm not convinced that inclusion in a library collection is equivalent to inclusion in a museum collection when it comes to establishing the notability of the subject. Vexations (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Markvs88, a biography based on the artist's own promotional copy is not a proper source, it is a reprint of his own promotion claiming he is in the Smithsonian. If you can find a Smithsonian source, that would be good. I searched their site and could not find one.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again ThatMontrealIP. I don't disagree with what you're saying, I cannot find any mention of his work at the Smithsonian either. OTOH not everything is on the Internet. For example, there is an artifact from Bridgeport, CT in the entrance hall of the American History Museum in DC. I've seen it dozens of times over the decades, and it's been there since at least 1986. Where did you see that it is his own copy on the Mystic Seaport site? Markvs88 (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Smithsonian claim is dubious, we need a source for that. The Mystic Seaport is a bio: organizations do not typically write biographies of artists-- they are almost always provided by the artist, unless the artist is dead. The Mystic seaport source is also very dubious because it is a 'museum' that is also trying to sell original works by the artist on the page mentioned. I've never seen a museum that advertised original works for sale like this: "Ocean View, Narragansett 20 x 56 $5,850." If it is selling works rather than collecting them, it's a commercial gallery with 'museum' in its name. Either way it is not an independent source as it has a financial interest in the promotion of the artist! ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Mystic Seaport museum is a serious museum with an extensive collection of maritime art, [5], that does not have any work by Robert Blazek in its collection. It also has a store [6], that sells prints by maritime artists, which is fairly common for art museums. Additionally, there is an art gallery adjacent to the museum. Exhibitions there are not curated by the museum staff, and the gallery is not a collecting institution. Representation by that gallery does not establish notability for the subject.--Vexations (talk) 11:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for this insight, which clears things up considerably. I thought the price+museum thing was fishy.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's arguments and Vexations.∯WBG^converse 13:46, 15 October 2018 (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.