Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlo Frigerio

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 keep.--Kubigula (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carlo Frigerio

Carlo Frigerio (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Tagged for speedy deletion as a non-notable biography. However, the article does cite a source, and the painter could be notable. Procedural nom. Keilana|Parlez ici 05:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Google remains silent despite the book source.Kakofonous (talk) 05:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I wouldn't use Google to test the notability of an Italian painter who died in 1800 (although there are some hits on Google Books). Let's keep this running a little while. Zagalejo^^^ 05:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete or maybe Merge to Santo Cattaneo. Seems to be a "school of Santo Cattaneo"-"school of Antonio Dusi" painter. Has one source and straddles WP:N with weak depth and question of reliability. Since all of the artist mention above seem have been added by User:CARAVAGGISTI basically copying one book --> Della vita e delle pitture di Lattanzio Gambara: memorie storiche, we seem to fall under WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, i.e. the editor seems to be putting up a mirror copy of that book on Wikipedia. Could be a KEEP if more sources fitting WP:N are found. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • It does not violate WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, which is: "...entire books ... Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with using public domain resources such as 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica to add content to an article." Many historical articles are the old Britannica ones in their entirety. Tyrenius (talk) 09:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
      • If you check the edits on articles using this source[1] you will see that User:CARAVAGGISTI is basicaly putting the entire book on Wikipedia broken up into encyclopedic entrys, its the whole entry, he is not "adding content" to some article. I am not sure if this has any encyclopedic value. I can see keeping as a stub since a little work went into translation and they can always be expanded, but i can also see deleting it since this reference all already exists over at another project (Google Books). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep as per addition by Tyrenius[2], 2nd source and text addition means article is now 100% improved. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete maybe he is weakly notable, but this one-liner gives so little information the stub will be no loss. Johnbod (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Weakly notable is still notable, so that is an argument to keep. Stubs by definition give little information, but as long as they have sufficient information for potential expansion, they are viable, as this one does and is. Tyrenius (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I only said maybe; actually I rather doubt he is notable. We are certainly now getting numbers of bios of old masters who are definitely not notable, which is a pain. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I think old masters are notable by definition, in the way that every railway station is considered notable. The material has a place and should not be deleted. List of minor 18th century painters is a possibility with redirects to it. Tyrenius (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
There has to be a cut-off. It is very useful to be able to argue that any old master is automatically notable, and I have done so myself, but I don't think it is really tenable. The majority of professional painters working in the C18th century don't meet WP:BIO, just as in the 21st century. Fortunately there are no details for most of them, but as some editors are now working their way through contemporary painters' biographical directories from the internet, we are starting to get some here. Frigerio is not one of the 120,000 artists listed on the Getty Union Name List, which is an ominous sign. Johnbod (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Somebody want to show me the source that says that this is an old master? Thats the problem, no sources that shows that. A non-notable 18th century painter is the same as a non-notable 21st century painter. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Technically, any C18 trained professional artist, especially if he has pupils or assistants, is an old master, and he would not be in this source unless he met that threshold, but I agree not all of these meet WP:BIO. Johnbod (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
(undent) It is anachronistic to apply the definition of a 21st century artist to an 18th century one. Nowadays anyone can call themselves an artist and be an untalented nonentity. Prior to the latter part of the 19th century there was an objective selection criterion, as an existing master would have to accept a pupil, who would then be trained to the requisite standard, following which, as an accomplished artist in his (or sometimes her) own right, he would have an acknowledged role to play in contemporary society, providing required images, whether portraits, landscapes, religious scenes etc. Any historic artist automatically attains a status, which is not the case now. Furthermore, there is valuable information, even in the case of lesser known historic artists, with links to better known ones. There is no reason whatsoever to delete this information. At the very least it should be included in the article on the better known artist in a section which lists the pupils of the better known artist. Tyrenius (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree a "merge" should be made to his master or school, but we frequently delete solid professional living artists, with long careers painting (or whatever), and teaching other artists, at AfD because they don't meet WP:BIO in terms of important commissions/exhibitions, & lack of RS information. The same criteria from WP:BIO apply to very minor older painters. Johnbod (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
In that case, you should state "merge". "Delete" would bar that possibility, and should only be for material that has no place on wikipedia: it doesn't just refer to the existence of the article, but to the content also. There are some thoughts on WP:N and WP:BIO at WP:HB. Tyrenius (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
acctually he is mentioned in the Cattaneo article already, but maybe his dates could be added. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verified historical information. If the artist did not have notability at the time of the book, he would not have been mentioned. See WP:N#TEMP, and WP:HISTORYBIAS for more thoughts regarding historical subjects. At the very least there should be a merge and redirect. Wikipedia is here to increase knowledge, not diminish it. The founding vision was "free access to the sum of all human knowledge." Tyrenius (talk) 11:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The book in question is simply a list of all known Italian artists at the time. The book itself does not denote the quality of the artist's work nor the true notability of the artist, it is simply a list. I, too, can create a book which contains a list of every artisan friend I have; that doesn't mean that those on the list are artists worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia in 200 years. If the artisan has created works which are still known to be in existence in 200 years, that's a different story. Since we cannot find any current references for this artist, notability is a distinct concern. I suggest that Frigerio is not notable by this logic. If we could flesh out this article and provide finer-detailed information, I'd want it to be kept. At the present time, such information is unavailable. Because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, I cannot predict that at some point in the future this information may become available. Because of this, Frigerio's article should be deleted until such time as a true WP:BIO notability can be established. —  X  S  G  04:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
And finally, the sole reference for this article states "FRIGERIO CARLO, discepolo di Santo Cattaneo, nacque li 5 Aprile dell' anno 1763. Dava belle speranze di riuscire nell' arte, ma la morte lo ha intempestivamente mietuto li 25 Dicembre dell' anno 1800." This translates to "Calro Frigerio, disciple of Santo Cattaneo, born on the 5th of April in year 1763. He had a beautiful hope to succeed in art, but death claimed him on the 25th of December in the year 1800." Even the reference seems to infer that this guy wanted to do well but never really got that far because he died young. I have little question that all of this demonstrates that Santo Cattaneo was likely notable, but Carlo Frigerio just wasn't. —  X  S  G  06:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per Tyrenius. More notable than numerous footballers. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
If so, then I challenge you to pick any footballer in Wikipedia... by definition of WP:Athletes, notability is established by competing in a fully-professional league. Because of this, every footballers article that I've seen shows how many appearances the subject has had. Tell me how many appearances your selected footballer has made. Now, tell me accurately how many works of art Frigerio created. Can you demonstrate that he created at least one work of art? I couldn't confidently say so. —  X  S  G  04:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
See User:Tyrenius/Historical systemic bias for thoughts on this issue. Tyrenius (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep:as per other 'keeps' above. Instead of taking the destructive line, why not try and expand this article. It looks as though it could be the sort of article we should carry on Wikipedia. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Expand the article with what information? There's no information currently known to be available. We can't predict that there ever will be and due to WP:CRYSTAL we therefore shouldn't base our opinion on what might become true at a future time. —  X  S  G  04:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
True; that he is not in the Getty Name list (link above) means he is not in the most obvious large painters dictionaries etc. There is a Ghit saying he painted stuff in a palace in Brescia, but that's it.... Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
That sounds to me like he was "competing in fully-professional league"! Tyrenius (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The footballer analogy is not helpful; we ask more than earning a living from art from contemporary artists, following WP:BIO. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Just above, it was stated for a footballer that "notability is established by competing in a fully-professional league." My point is that being trained in the studio of a master and painting in a palace in Brescia is an equivalent status for an 18th century artist. Tyrenius (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
However there's no mention in the article of the artist painting a palace in Brescia, is there? Find a reference and add it to the article and there's much less of a notability challenge. I've looked... I can't find a reference for this... —  X  S  G  16:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Johnbod found it. I've added it to the article. Tyrenius (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Beautiful, and nice work. —  X  S  G  23:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


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.