The result was Delete. Not sufficient verification to substantiate notability. Tyrenius ( talk) 01:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I can find no reliable sources for the existence of this painter. The sources provided go to the main page of a website that isn't searchable, as far as I can tell, so even if the information is really there, I can't find it. There are only 11 Google hits for "Julian Z. Gilbert", most of them to ebay sellers attempting to sell his works, which, surprisingly, are not the "portraits" that the article says he's noted for. And this may just be my eyes, but the signatures on those works don't look like "Julian Gilbert" to me. There is only one non-Wikipedia hit for "Julian Zangwell Gilbert", and that's to a forum page. The article itself is a part of the Vitus Barbaro hoax. Corvus cornix talk 19:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
SAVE Let me express a fair opionion of what should be done with this article. First off, the artist's work was clearly listed on ebay as "Julian Z. Gilbert", so there is no problem of those works being attributed to him. 2nd, the images themselves were added by Joel Gilbert, a relative, so there is no issue about copyrights. 3rd, to even have works published into lithographs means one is noted - just like an author being published - therfore by nature notable. 4th, there is no such thing as a Vitus hoax, the person has been proven to be real- so it was always a misunderstanding, rather than a hoax, with also further evidence showing that confussion was just be the work of hackers posting fake IP's. finally, the sourcing provides all information where poeple can get catalogues themselves and see the formal listing of the artist- a valid source
Mctrain (
talk) 22:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
You have every ability to contact the Wikipeia account labeled as "Joel Gilbert" when the pictures were added- talk to that person before you make false assumptions. Mctrain ( talk) 22:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
SAVE google as the standard of noteriaty is not a valid basis for removal. Google searches only pull up names that have been added to internet articles or listings- hardly relevant. Therefore, googling as a means of inclusion of Wikipedia is a bogus position and not valid to any discussion of inclusion on Wikipedia. Mctrain ( talk) 22:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
When it comes to art resumes' listing who they studied under is a big deal Mctrain ( talk) 00:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Not sufficient verification to substantiate notability. Tyrenius ( talk) 01:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I can find no reliable sources for the existence of this painter. The sources provided go to the main page of a website that isn't searchable, as far as I can tell, so even if the information is really there, I can't find it. There are only 11 Google hits for "Julian Z. Gilbert", most of them to ebay sellers attempting to sell his works, which, surprisingly, are not the "portraits" that the article says he's noted for. And this may just be my eyes, but the signatures on those works don't look like "Julian Gilbert" to me. There is only one non-Wikipedia hit for "Julian Zangwell Gilbert", and that's to a forum page. The article itself is a part of the Vitus Barbaro hoax. Corvus cornix talk 19:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
SAVE Let me express a fair opionion of what should be done with this article. First off, the artist's work was clearly listed on ebay as "Julian Z. Gilbert", so there is no problem of those works being attributed to him. 2nd, the images themselves were added by Joel Gilbert, a relative, so there is no issue about copyrights. 3rd, to even have works published into lithographs means one is noted - just like an author being published - therfore by nature notable. 4th, there is no such thing as a Vitus hoax, the person has been proven to be real- so it was always a misunderstanding, rather than a hoax, with also further evidence showing that confussion was just be the work of hackers posting fake IP's. finally, the sourcing provides all information where poeple can get catalogues themselves and see the formal listing of the artist- a valid source
Mctrain (
talk) 22:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
You have every ability to contact the Wikipeia account labeled as "Joel Gilbert" when the pictures were added- talk to that person before you make false assumptions. Mctrain ( talk) 22:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
SAVE google as the standard of noteriaty is not a valid basis for removal. Google searches only pull up names that have been added to internet articles or listings- hardly relevant. Therefore, googling as a means of inclusion of Wikipedia is a bogus position and not valid to any discussion of inclusion on Wikipedia. Mctrain ( talk) 22:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
When it comes to art resumes' listing who they studied under is a big deal Mctrain ( talk) 00:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply