Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enciclopedia d'arte italiana

Add links
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. Sandstein 20:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enciclopedia d'arte italiana

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

Enciclopedia d'arte italiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Given sources prove its mere existence, without any clue about notability, also failing WP:NBOOK. Given that at least two major contributors (Mach280 and Genefaund) are proven sockpuppets, and there's a blatant cluster (Mach280, Maxxinelli01, Genefaund, and Enci.2021) editing related articles (Roberta Imperatori, Michela Ramadori, Paolo Salvati, and Cento Pittori via Margutta), I think it's a clear cut case of UPE. --Vituzzu (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I devoted time to the page on the Italian Art Encyclopedia Enciclopedia d'arte italiana to cite a ten-year widespread and verifiable publication--Mach280 (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading, the work of others in the community if I hope done well, why does it have to be negative?--Mach280 (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kunsthaus Zürich Bibliothek.

Delete - WP:PROMO Reading the site's "about us" page it states "Enciclopedia’s purpose is to gather artists, artists’ association, art galleries and art critics to create a national cooperation network to better promote the associated artists by its web Portal". Most artist profiles contain contact information for the artist. The site is promotional and the article promotes the site. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Sorry, let me explain well, publishers work to sell their product and get funded, so they promote ... should we delete them all from wikipedia? Instead we use the parameter of notoriety and history to tell them about them. The Enciclopedia d'Arte Italiana is an association that has been publishing a General Catalog on Italian art for a long time.--Mach280 (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Most publishers make money by selling their books to interested readers. There is a class of publishers that make money by selling books to their authors. We call that the vanity press and generally consider them unreliable sources. The subject of this article seems to be in that category. ... should we delete them all from wikipedia? Yes, if the article is used to promote their business, we should. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Vexations (talk) 11:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, and while the article claims that "Entries are edited by a scientific technical committee", we know that artists pay to be listed. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_361#Enciclopedia_d%27arte_italiana Vexations (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not correct, Encyclopedia of Italian Art was born as an association, as an association it does not receive state funding, and is self-supporting. Precisely for this reason, the artists who want to associate ask to be evaluated. Through a technical committee, the requests are examined, and they do not take all those who propose themselves. Then they publish a general catalog for over ten years, widespread and very authoritative. In Italy, the Cento Pittori via Margutta are also an association of historical artists, the associates pay a membership fee, and exhibit from 1970 to today. This doesn't mean they take everyone, they all have an art committee. The Quadriennale di Roma is financed by the state and by private individuals ... so they too could take whoever they want based on the private knowledge of those who finance? But really? On wikipedia, soccer players who are paid to do their job unite and maybe after unsuccessful seasons they stay on wikis as sportsmen.... and here are the artistic organizations we are talking about, which have been publishing works for years, do we underestimate them because they finance themselves? Honestly it doesn't work with this parameter, we lose value.--Mach280 (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know if @Mach280 is editing on behalf of the Enciclopedia d'Arte Italiana, or any of the other subjects he has written about. If he is, disclosure of a conflict of interest is may be required by the Terms of Use. Refer to the section on Paid contributions without disclosure. Vexations (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, i have read now, i declare that the topics covered are voluntary. I had written the article on this publication to quote a work of art that i enjoyed reading in the library. I verified it was a publication that had cultural diffusion over time. Thanks--Mach280 (talk) 12:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's true that this is a volume of self-promotion for artists, which is made clear here (payment of "joining" decides number of characters you get). I don't think that in itself would be a reason to delete the article. The problem is that there are no independent sources about the encyclopedia. The ones listed here are the site of the encyclopedia itself, an exhibit of artists sponsored by the encyclopedia, and links to entries in library catalogs. The gotcha with that latter is that the site (linked above) says that it sends copies to libraries for free. So library holdings are not a good measure. Lamona (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with the explanations given above, I'm for "Delete". Paying to be in an association and the size of the payment dictates the size of the article you get isn't terribly independent. Not saying the project isn't worthwhile, but we'd need third-party sources unrelated to it. Perhaps some scholarly journals would have information on the subject, but I can't read Italian so can't comment on that aspect. Oaktree b (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi, I'm inserting some sources, one of this comes from the digital archive of the National Gallery of Modern Art in Rome. I add that on the encycloedia website it is clearly written that they do not accept members unless evaluated by an artistic commission. Nobody enters the association unless deemed suitable. I had evaluated the publication as relevant because it was written by many well-known critics, also distributed abroad, for more than ten years. For this I ask you more time to insert other verifiable sources.--Mach280 (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Enciclopedia_d%27arte_italiana&oldid=1075270308"