Home • Search • Translate
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 delete. Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 00:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Nelson De La Nuez

Nelson De La Nuez (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ARTIST. No substantial references in reliable sources. "Private Air Luxury Homes Magazine", "Global License Magazine", and "Designer Wallcoverings" do not confer notability. No major art awards. Most notable event was that article subject made the last art delivery to Michael Jackson. Article subject sells prints on eBay at modest prices. Just not seeing much notability here.

AfD initiated after COI problem reported at AN/I. John Nagle ( talk) 22:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless substantial in-depth coverage in notable mainstream sources is found – I've looked for that without success, but maybe someone else will have more luck. Selling an illustration to Michael Jackson is not in any way a notable achievement, because Michael Jackson was not known as an expert on modern art; selling something to the Whitney might contribute to notability, because the Whitney is known for taste and discrimination in that area. Oh, and the King of Pop Art was Roy Lichtenstein. This appears to have been shameless promotion from the day it was created; Wikipedia does not tolerate promotion of any kind. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 23:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I worked on this article some, but after looking in sources that would very likely have some coverage (or at least a mention) of this self-proclaimed "King of Pop Art" (such as the NY Times or the LA Times), I've reached the conclusion (or at least the extremely strong suspicion) that this person's "fame" is almost entirely built on self-promotion. I suggested in the AN/I discussion that someone bring it to AfD, because that can sometimes be a catalyst for finding reliable sources, and if that's the case, I'll reconsider my !vote, but as things stand at the moment, this just doesn't add up. I'm not sure it's a WP:HOAX, but he sure as heck doesn't appear to be notable in our terms. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This artist exists but is not notable. My search found no evidence of significant exhibitions, or of significant critical attention, or of holdings within the permanent collections of notable galleries or museums. Many books on the history of pop art have been issued by major publishers, and none seem to discuss this artist. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Is it possible he's too recent to have been covered in such books? Beyond My Ken ( talk) 00:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • The article claims that he has been "recognizable" since the 1980s. That's roughly 30 years ago. The sale of paintings to Michael Jackson was in 2009, which is eight years ago. There have been major books and museum exhibits in pop art in recent years, which did not include this artist, who claims to be "king" of that genre. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Agreed. Here's some of his work. [1] He imitates Lichtenstein and Warhol, except he seems to use Photoshop. He's a good commercial illustrator. But not a famous one. John Nagle ( talk) 01:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • The British Museum, the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis, and the Smithsonian all have organized major retrospectives on pop art in recent years. The American shows are traveling exhibitions. All three shows are now on display, I believe. Hundreds of truly notable artists are part of these exhibitions, but not this particular one. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete though I've always thought that in cases like this, instead of deleting the article it should be stubbed down to simply read, "X is a nonnotable artist who wrote a lame Wikipedia article about himself`." E Eng 01:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • DO NOT DELETE! AN EDUCATION:
This editor was advised not to rant here, but did so anyway. He's listed some sources, but none of them appear to me to be reliable. Anyone who wants to do a closer investigation of those sources can see them below, but there's no point in leaving the rant out where it can poison the discussion.
Beyond My Ken ( talk) 02:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

...You are showing your ignorance--This is a world renown sothebys collected artist. Roy Lichtenstein the King of Pop Art?? Are you kidding me? You sir do not know any art history-let me fill you in----he never created 1 original work of art--everything he ever made was taken from a comic book--directly---he stole every image and not just that but the text--- http://nextpanel.blogspot.com/2011/08/roy-lichtenstein-plagiarist-or-art.html Nelson de la nuez creates every original image and writes it all himself--something Warhol and Lichtenstein never ever did. Warhol however created a movement--Pop Art--he will always be known for that-Lichtenstein created a "style"--the style of using the Ben Day dots--bubbles on the pieces...both are famous for styles of Pop Art BUT they did not have any originality when it came to creating. I am happy to educate you if you really want one. There is an entire background and story to De La Nuez becoming known as--NOT a self proclaimed King of pop art--you are also wrong--he did not make that title himself-he even says that in articles-"he's not that egotistical" -the press and news media created it when he sold to Michael Jackson and the headlines read "The King of Pop Buys from the King of Pop Art" It stuck-why not use it-everyone else did for him-? and years later it's his brand name--it's not HIS name-don't mistake it--many artists have brands and alternate names--why is this such a problem for you-do you not understand business?-why am I having to explain this? I am literally educating you guys about art and business and brands... By the way--there are many artists on here who list the notable celebrities they sell to because it is relevant and this was VERY relevant--The Wicked Witch piece became hugely famous and sold out worldwide--Michael Jackson actually did have a massive art collection and these were the final 3 paintings he purchased which was also in the articles. He purchased 3 very large paintings--not an "illustration" as you say. These are are very relevant--I do not know how you can say otherwise. I don't think we should have to prove any of this to you--other artists on here prove far lesser things so they all need to be deleted??

His brands which are many--licensing deals with major prestigious brands--luggage, home decor-this was all documented on his wikipedia--FACTS in his wikipedia- Not hype or promo--real contracts made, deals--a career--do you understand a huge career? This is someone known worldwide--only in your little tiny wikipedia world do you apparently not know famous art/artists--you have really shown that with the above statements that I helped clarify.

Why would you want to delete such a prolific artist with plenty of documentation and an amazing career to show? Why hate on others--you would love his work--he's collected by major corporations--hanging in Delta airlines in LAX and JFK VIP lounges, Kim Kardashian's shoe company and by thousands of celebrities so get your facts in order--I can prove anything you want. Any other questions? I am happy to answer about the art world in general or about the famous artist Nelson De La Nuez. It would be so great if anyone wanted to actually contribute in a positive manner to his article and replace the FACTS which were all there but you want to hide them....if you delete or remove his information than there are far more artists than him that will have to go first... He is far far more notable than many that are listed on wikipedia. I can give you hundreds of links and magazine articles he's been featured in and that are online & in print--how much time do you have? this is so middle ages...by acting as though you really don't know his work or who he is, it's making you look really bad. You guys do whatever you want here on this blog-I realize that-it's the strangest thing..but I really wish you'd actually honestly care about leaving real people with real facts on wikipedia. Here's just a few random links for you--these are so easy to find-he has countless galleries, art & museum shows-see below-I can't even begin to list all of them with links for you...here's a few but it definitely shows you didn't try very hard to see who he was--there is far more out there...you shouldn't need any more justification at ALL to keep his name on here as a highly collected world renowned artist. He is far superior in his career stage and sales to SO many others you have on here now. I will not edit it again-I just want you to agree to find 1 objective positive person who knows a tad bit about art to edit it & isn't out to attack him because you guys also shouldn't be editing it from your mean spirited comments you appear to be coming from. You also have proven the lack of art knowledge. It's only fair to him to have someone impartial with knowledge to edit his page. I get you don't like my writing and that's fine but don't delete a well known artist and show hate for a person's career because of that. I am simply trying to lay off myself from the article (I have not touched it) and shed some light on the matter because it's gone too far & I don't know why when I did nothing wrong but you are so angry.... He shouldn't have to prove any prices or anything to you to be listed who he is on here..he has MORE than enough.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Artworldpro ( talk • contribs) — Artworldpro ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Artworldpro: When I let you know you that you are allowed to comment here, I specifically said that you should be polite, civil and collegial, and that you should not rant. So, instead, you came here and ranted. None of the sources you listed is reliable, they're blogs, store sites and PR. I'm going to hat your rant, and suggest that you not comment here again, since it seems you cannot behave in a fashion that is acceptable on Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 02:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply
BTW, artist bios in small museums are generally provided by the artist or the artist's representative, and the bio in the Coral Spring Museum citation above has all the signs of PR-speak which infests all of the writing about this artist. Clearly self-promotional. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as promotional without solid coverage in legitimate sources. The links that Artworldpro gave above are questionable at best. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 03:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: My searches are finding mention in local coverage, such as "Simi Valley artist Nelson De La Nuez" exhibiting at a Montrose Arts & Crafts Festival ( [2]  – via  HighBeam (subscription required) ) but nothing to meet the WP:NARTIST criteria or WP:GNG. AllyD ( talk) 07:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 07:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No, as in zero, independent evidence whatsoever for notability. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 11:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment While it looks like this article is headed for a "Delete", what about this article in the L.A. times? It is an article entirely about the subject published in a major reliable independent newspaper. KDS4444 ( talk) 07:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC) reply
Yes, indeed, it is an article in the LA Times. and it is laudable that you found it, bur the contents of the article have to do with Cartoon Network latching on to De La Nuez. Cartoon Network cannot really be described as a reliable source regarding modern art, so I think the net result doesn't change the lack of notability noted above. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 11:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC) reply
I agree, the Cartoon Network is no authority on modern art! But the article wasn't published by the Cartoon Network, it was published by the L.A. times. We aren't evaluating whether or not the subject qualifies as a modern pop artist according to the Cartoon Network (which may or may not be accurate), we are evaluating whether or not he is the main subject of reliable independent verifiable sources, and I think the L.A. Times does qualify as that. Thoughts? KDS4444 ( talk) 01:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC) reply
That's correct. But what else is there? E Eng 01:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC) reply
Other than that, I guess I got nothin'. I got nothin' else. KDS4444 ( talk) 03:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC) reply
That article originated at the Burbank Leader, one of the regional papers published by the Los Angeles Times. Here's the Burbank Leader version. [3], where it ran with the subhead "Hoover grad's take on the form has drawn the attention of Cartoon Network, and Michael Jackson was a fan, too." It's a story in Burbank because De La Nuez went to Herbert Hoover High School (Glendale). (That school article lists De La Nuez as a notable alumnus, added in this edit [4] by Artworldpro ( talk · contribs).) John Nagle ( talk) 07:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment. My heart won't exactly break if this article is deleted; I originally stubbed it, rather than speedying it, because there seemed to be just enough legitimate coverage to justify a very short, very neutral article. but the unrelenting stream of promotion and self-promotion inflates this dollar-store-level knockoff of Roy Lichtenstein into a world-class artist. (Even his "King of Pop Art" self-assumed title is a bit of a fake; it's not in the TMZ headlines where he claims it comes from, and as a trademark it doesn't refer to his work, but to products from a company he owns, apparently not limited to his own work.) The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 12:29, 14 July 2017 (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/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nelson_De_La_Nuez&oldid=1138120338"
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 delete. Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 00:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Nelson De La Nuez

Nelson De La Nuez (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ARTIST. No substantial references in reliable sources. "Private Air Luxury Homes Magazine", "Global License Magazine", and "Designer Wallcoverings" do not confer notability. No major art awards. Most notable event was that article subject made the last art delivery to Michael Jackson. Article subject sells prints on eBay at modest prices. Just not seeing much notability here.

AfD initiated after COI problem reported at AN/I. John Nagle ( talk) 22:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless substantial in-depth coverage in notable mainstream sources is found – I've looked for that without success, but maybe someone else will have more luck. Selling an illustration to Michael Jackson is not in any way a notable achievement, because Michael Jackson was not known as an expert on modern art; selling something to the Whitney might contribute to notability, because the Whitney is known for taste and discrimination in that area. Oh, and the King of Pop Art was Roy Lichtenstein. This appears to have been shameless promotion from the day it was created; Wikipedia does not tolerate promotion of any kind. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 23:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I worked on this article some, but after looking in sources that would very likely have some coverage (or at least a mention) of this self-proclaimed "King of Pop Art" (such as the NY Times or the LA Times), I've reached the conclusion (or at least the extremely strong suspicion) that this person's "fame" is almost entirely built on self-promotion. I suggested in the AN/I discussion that someone bring it to AfD, because that can sometimes be a catalyst for finding reliable sources, and if that's the case, I'll reconsider my !vote, but as things stand at the moment, this just doesn't add up. I'm not sure it's a WP:HOAX, but he sure as heck doesn't appear to be notable in our terms. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This artist exists but is not notable. My search found no evidence of significant exhibitions, or of significant critical attention, or of holdings within the permanent collections of notable galleries or museums. Many books on the history of pop art have been issued by major publishers, and none seem to discuss this artist. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Is it possible he's too recent to have been covered in such books? Beyond My Ken ( talk) 00:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • The article claims that he has been "recognizable" since the 1980s. That's roughly 30 years ago. The sale of paintings to Michael Jackson was in 2009, which is eight years ago. There have been major books and museum exhibits in pop art in recent years, which did not include this artist, who claims to be "king" of that genre. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Agreed. Here's some of his work. [1] He imitates Lichtenstein and Warhol, except he seems to use Photoshop. He's a good commercial illustrator. But not a famous one. John Nagle ( talk) 01:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • The British Museum, the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis, and the Smithsonian all have organized major retrospectives on pop art in recent years. The American shows are traveling exhibitions. All three shows are now on display, I believe. Hundreds of truly notable artists are part of these exhibitions, but not this particular one. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete though I've always thought that in cases like this, instead of deleting the article it should be stubbed down to simply read, "X is a nonnotable artist who wrote a lame Wikipedia article about himself`." E Eng 01:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • DO NOT DELETE! AN EDUCATION:
This editor was advised not to rant here, but did so anyway. He's listed some sources, but none of them appear to me to be reliable. Anyone who wants to do a closer investigation of those sources can see them below, but there's no point in leaving the rant out where it can poison the discussion.
Beyond My Ken ( talk) 02:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

...You are showing your ignorance--This is a world renown sothebys collected artist. Roy Lichtenstein the King of Pop Art?? Are you kidding me? You sir do not know any art history-let me fill you in----he never created 1 original work of art--everything he ever made was taken from a comic book--directly---he stole every image and not just that but the text--- http://nextpanel.blogspot.com/2011/08/roy-lichtenstein-plagiarist-or-art.html Nelson de la nuez creates every original image and writes it all himself--something Warhol and Lichtenstein never ever did. Warhol however created a movement--Pop Art--he will always be known for that-Lichtenstein created a "style"--the style of using the Ben Day dots--bubbles on the pieces...both are famous for styles of Pop Art BUT they did not have any originality when it came to creating. I am happy to educate you if you really want one. There is an entire background and story to De La Nuez becoming known as--NOT a self proclaimed King of pop art--you are also wrong--he did not make that title himself-he even says that in articles-"he's not that egotistical" -the press and news media created it when he sold to Michael Jackson and the headlines read "The King of Pop Buys from the King of Pop Art" It stuck-why not use it-everyone else did for him-? and years later it's his brand name--it's not HIS name-don't mistake it--many artists have brands and alternate names--why is this such a problem for you-do you not understand business?-why am I having to explain this? I am literally educating you guys about art and business and brands... By the way--there are many artists on here who list the notable celebrities they sell to because it is relevant and this was VERY relevant--The Wicked Witch piece became hugely famous and sold out worldwide--Michael Jackson actually did have a massive art collection and these were the final 3 paintings he purchased which was also in the articles. He purchased 3 very large paintings--not an "illustration" as you say. These are are very relevant--I do not know how you can say otherwise. I don't think we should have to prove any of this to you--other artists on here prove far lesser things so they all need to be deleted??

His brands which are many--licensing deals with major prestigious brands--luggage, home decor-this was all documented on his wikipedia--FACTS in his wikipedia- Not hype or promo--real contracts made, deals--a career--do you understand a huge career? This is someone known worldwide--only in your little tiny wikipedia world do you apparently not know famous art/artists--you have really shown that with the above statements that I helped clarify.

Why would you want to delete such a prolific artist with plenty of documentation and an amazing career to show? Why hate on others--you would love his work--he's collected by major corporations--hanging in Delta airlines in LAX and JFK VIP lounges, Kim Kardashian's shoe company and by thousands of celebrities so get your facts in order--I can prove anything you want. Any other questions? I am happy to answer about the art world in general or about the famous artist Nelson De La Nuez. It would be so great if anyone wanted to actually contribute in a positive manner to his article and replace the FACTS which were all there but you want to hide them....if you delete or remove his information than there are far more artists than him that will have to go first... He is far far more notable than many that are listed on wikipedia. I can give you hundreds of links and magazine articles he's been featured in and that are online & in print--how much time do you have? this is so middle ages...by acting as though you really don't know his work or who he is, it's making you look really bad. You guys do whatever you want here on this blog-I realize that-it's the strangest thing..but I really wish you'd actually honestly care about leaving real people with real facts on wikipedia. Here's just a few random links for you--these are so easy to find-he has countless galleries, art & museum shows-see below-I can't even begin to list all of them with links for you...here's a few but it definitely shows you didn't try very hard to see who he was--there is far more out there...you shouldn't need any more justification at ALL to keep his name on here as a highly collected world renowned artist. He is far superior in his career stage and sales to SO many others you have on here now. I will not edit it again-I just want you to agree to find 1 objective positive person who knows a tad bit about art to edit it & isn't out to attack him because you guys also shouldn't be editing it from your mean spirited comments you appear to be coming from. You also have proven the lack of art knowledge. It's only fair to him to have someone impartial with knowledge to edit his page. I get you don't like my writing and that's fine but don't delete a well known artist and show hate for a person's career because of that. I am simply trying to lay off myself from the article (I have not touched it) and shed some light on the matter because it's gone too far & I don't know why when I did nothing wrong but you are so angry.... He shouldn't have to prove any prices or anything to you to be listed who he is on here..he has MORE than enough.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Artworldpro ( talk • contribs) — Artworldpro ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Artworldpro: When I let you know you that you are allowed to comment here, I specifically said that you should be polite, civil and collegial, and that you should not rant. So, instead, you came here and ranted. None of the sources you listed is reliable, they're blogs, store sites and PR. I'm going to hat your rant, and suggest that you not comment here again, since it seems you cannot behave in a fashion that is acceptable on Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 02:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply
BTW, artist bios in small museums are generally provided by the artist or the artist's representative, and the bio in the Coral Spring Museum citation above has all the signs of PR-speak which infests all of the writing about this artist. Clearly self-promotional. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as promotional without solid coverage in legitimate sources. The links that Artworldpro gave above are questionable at best. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 03:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: My searches are finding mention in local coverage, such as "Simi Valley artist Nelson De La Nuez" exhibiting at a Montrose Arts & Crafts Festival ( [2]  – via  HighBeam (subscription required) ) but nothing to meet the WP:NARTIST criteria or WP:GNG. AllyD ( talk) 07:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 07:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No, as in zero, independent evidence whatsoever for notability. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 11:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment While it looks like this article is headed for a "Delete", what about this article in the L.A. times? It is an article entirely about the subject published in a major reliable independent newspaper. KDS4444 ( talk) 07:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC) reply
Yes, indeed, it is an article in the LA Times. and it is laudable that you found it, bur the contents of the article have to do with Cartoon Network latching on to De La Nuez. Cartoon Network cannot really be described as a reliable source regarding modern art, so I think the net result doesn't change the lack of notability noted above. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 11:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC) reply
I agree, the Cartoon Network is no authority on modern art! But the article wasn't published by the Cartoon Network, it was published by the L.A. times. We aren't evaluating whether or not the subject qualifies as a modern pop artist according to the Cartoon Network (which may or may not be accurate), we are evaluating whether or not he is the main subject of reliable independent verifiable sources, and I think the L.A. Times does qualify as that. Thoughts? KDS4444 ( talk) 01:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC) reply
That's correct. But what else is there? E Eng 01:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC) reply
Other than that, I guess I got nothin'. I got nothin' else. KDS4444 ( talk) 03:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC) reply
That article originated at the Burbank Leader, one of the regional papers published by the Los Angeles Times. Here's the Burbank Leader version. [3], where it ran with the subhead "Hoover grad's take on the form has drawn the attention of Cartoon Network, and Michael Jackson was a fan, too." It's a story in Burbank because De La Nuez went to Herbert Hoover High School (Glendale). (That school article lists De La Nuez as a notable alumnus, added in this edit [4] by Artworldpro ( talk · contribs).) John Nagle ( talk) 07:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment. My heart won't exactly break if this article is deleted; I originally stubbed it, rather than speedying it, because there seemed to be just enough legitimate coverage to justify a very short, very neutral article. but the unrelenting stream of promotion and self-promotion inflates this dollar-store-level knockoff of Roy Lichtenstein into a world-class artist. (Even his "King of Pop Art" self-assumed title is a bit of a fake; it's not in the TMZ headlines where he claims it comes from, and as a trademark it doesn't refer to his work, but to products from a company he owns, apparently not limited to his own work.) The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 12:29, 14 July 2017 (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/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nelson_De_La_Nuez&oldid=1138120338"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE