Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Snodgrass
Source: 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 12:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bob Snodgrass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Biography of a living person that appears to fail WP:BIO. I don't see any significant coverage in news or books; just a few passing mentions in art and drug-related articles. Article hasn't expanded past a stub in a year and a half, and was tagged for no notability since April. There just don't seem to be any reliable sources to expand this page or establish any notability at all. In fact, a good amount of it ("innovator", "health and safety trained") reads more like a resume than a biography. Kafziel Complaint Department 15:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failing to assert notability. Bob has one of those names that is a bit of a minefield to google, but narrowing it down reveals only passing mentions outside of wiki-esque sites. The claim that he is "prominent" in his field isn't supported by the article on Glassblowing or the List of glass artists, never mind anything outside of WP. In fact, a brief look at some of those mentioned on that list demonstrates the level of notability that this article fails to convince me of. OBM | blah blah blah 15:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Snodgrass was a well-known member of the Grateful Dead's entourage, and an influential (if low profile) character. That he is omitted from the cited list simply shows the dichotomy between fine art and popular art; note the distinction Wikipedia draws between "violinists" and "fiddlers," even though the instrument is the same. The article will require finding print sources to reach full length, I expect, but there is certainly enough information online to indicate notability. For example, [1], "It all started with glassblowing legend Bob Snodgrass. He was the visionary artist who first experimented with clear borosilicate (or Pyrex) by adding powdered metals, thereby creating "color-changing glass.". Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment; I understand the disctinction you're trying to make regarding fine and popular art, but I don't think that has any bearing on the subject's notability (or on the inclusion criteria of that list - you'll see that a few of those artists certainly would disagree with the label of "fine art".) If his notability can be proven with reliable, third-party, published sources then please add them to the article, because at the moment there are none of any kind supporting the article's claims of the subject being a "prominent" glassblower or your assertion that he is an "influential (if low profile)" friend of the Grateful Dead (which is going have a hard time against WP:N, anyway). OBM | blah blah blah 11:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. It is not appropriate, bordering on the uncivil, to cast behavioral aspersions at those who disagree with you or point out the errors in you arguments. You claimed that google searches showed no significant coverage, but I found an article in about 15 seconds and cited it. You claimed that his notability was not supported by the list of glass artists, but in terms of the criteria for that list, he would not be included regardless of his notability. Given your failure to make any genuinely relevant points, you would be better advised to strike your poorly informed comments than to attempt to chastise those who provide more accurate, relevant information. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Steady on there. I didn't claim that his notability wasn't asserted by that list, I claimed that it wasn't asserted as there is a complete and utter lack of sources in the article, nevermind sources that may meet WP:RS. My nod to that list was questioning the assertion that he is prominent in that field. If that isn't the field that he's prominent in, then feel free to clarify this on the article (with sources). And please, please be aware that WP:AFD is a place for discussion, not a battleground; I wasn't casting "behavioral aspersions" on you, merely responding to some of the points you raised in an effort to forward the discussion. Please can you try and keep a level head, and focus on how the subject meets WP:N and WP:V so that the article can be improved if possible? :-D OBM | blah blah blah 13:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. It is not appropriate, bordering on the uncivil, to cast behavioral aspersions at those who disagree with you or point out the errors in you arguments. You claimed that google searches showed no significant coverage, but I found an article in about 15 seconds and cited it. You claimed that his notability was not supported by the list of glass artists, but in terms of the criteria for that list, he would not be included regardless of his notability. Given your failure to make any genuinely relevant points, you would be better advised to strike your poorly informed comments than to attempt to chastise those who provide more accurate, relevant information. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment; I understand the disctinction you're trying to make regarding fine and popular art, but I don't think that has any bearing on the subject's notability (or on the inclusion criteria of that list - you'll see that a few of those artists certainly would disagree with the label of "fine art".) If his notability can be proven with reliable, third-party, published sources then please add them to the article, because at the moment there are none of any kind supporting the article's claims of the subject being a "prominent" glassblower or your assertion that he is an "influential (if low profile)" friend of the Grateful Dead (which is going have a hard time against WP:N, anyway). OBM | blah blah blah 11:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) Minos, it was reasonable for OBM to point out that your feelings about fine art vs. pop art on Wikipedia are not relevant to this AfD discussion. He did it in a perfectly civil way. Your reply, on the other hand, wasn't so civil. He never called you "poorly informed", and he didn't say you "failed to make any genuinely relevant points". Let's not turn this into something personal. If sources can be added to the article to establish notability, I'm sure we'd all be happy to close this with a unanimous keep. Kafziel Complaint Department 13:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, can't see how he meets WP:BIO, and the lack of references throws up WP:BLP concerns. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 20 October 2008 (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.