Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cornelius Gurlitt (art collector)

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 merge to 2012 Munich artworks discovery. Courcelles (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelius Gurlitt (art collector)

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

I previously redirected this to 2012 Munich artworks discovery citing WP:BLP1E in 2013 but User:Lx 121 has reverted today. Although this person is no longer alive, I think it is still clear that they were only notable for their involvement in this case and as such there is no reason to have a separate article. SmartSE (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FIRST - i object to the fact that the above user eliminated this article UNILATERALLY, without ANY discussion. that was not appropriate; certainly not for an admin, who should know better.,

SECOND - while i am reasonably "agnostic" as to whether this article continues as a standalone, or is MERGED, i object to one user simply ERASING the article, without including the relevant information in the redirected article. the redirect article provides virtually NO background info about cornelius gurlitt, he simply "appears" in the narrative there; as a man without a history. this is NOT good "encyclopedic" practice. :p

Lx 121 (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to be stroppy. I made a bold edit and you disagree - that's fine. That no one else raised an objection at the time or in the last two years makes me fairly confident that it was the right decision. The only background about him present in the article is original research based off a primary source so is hardly suitable to merge. SmartSE (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

observation - it can't be BOTH "original research" AND "based off a primary source"; those 2 conditions contradict each other. & i'm sorry, but when someone makes edits that clearly & obviously make wikipedia less-useful, i get tend to "stroppy" about it; especially coming from an experienced user, who should know better. Lx 121 (talk) 23:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ALSO - i'm not at all clear on what "primary source" it is that you are referring to? Lx 121 (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2012 Munich artwork discovery, per nominator's arguments. It makes sense: the story is in the art, and the old man hiding them is only notable by his association with that art. If he had been hiding old newspapers, no one would have cared. He is amply covered in the 2012 Munich artworks discovery article.New Media Theorist (talk) 01:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"amply covered" - REALLY? no date of birth, no back ground, no personal history, no explanation of how he came to the attention of the authorities in the first place, & you consider this to be adequate? clearly, & with all due respect, you & i have radically different ideas of what constitutes "amply covered", in this case. Lx 121 (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to 2012 Munich artworks discovery. The info is useful, but he is not notable enough for a stand-alone article. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2012 Munich artworks discovery. Not sure how much there is to merge, that piece seems to handle the bio well enough. Carrite (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2015 (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.