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. The arguments for keeping are such things as: two published books (whether they are self-published or not, the mere fact of having published a couple of books does not confer notability); mention in a local newspaper; there are other articles on subjects less notable (see WP:OTHERSTUFF); he has exhibited with other notable artists (see WP:NOTINHERITED; "The sources cited seem notable enough to keep" with no explanation why (see WP:ASSERTN); "I ... feel passionately about the issue" (see WP:ILIKEIT). Not one of them actually provides reasons for keeping in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I have rarely seen a deletion discussion covering so many of the sections of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The arguments for deletion, on the other hand, are based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (The proportion of "keep" comments that are from new accounts is actually irrelevant, since this is not a vote, and none of the new accounts produced policy-compliant reasons anyway.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Osta[edit]

Andrew Osta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

WP:BLP of an artist, which makes no particularly strong claim of notability under WP:CREATIVE and which rests far too strongly on primary and unreliable sources without much evidence of coverage in properly reliable sources that would count toward getting a person over WP:GNG. As always, a Wikipedia article is not something that a person is automatically entitled to have just because it's possible to verify that they exist — it's something a person earns by being substantively the subject of media coverage in sources independent of their own PR materials. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because two published books seems notable to me. Many of the sources are local rather than national or international, but it appears the person is of importance in local circles. I agree that some of the achievements are not particularly notable but I see no issue with the sources. They cannot be said to be PR materials and are diverse in origin SallyDee777 (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having published books doesn't make anyone notable, especially not when, as in this case, they were self-published: Publisher: Andrew Ostapenko Designs. Drmies (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Atencion San Miguel is the main newspaper for the community of the town of San Miguel de Allende, Mexico, where the subject lives. The newspaper is published weekly in English and Spanish in print. The online version on the newspaper is a reflection of what is published in print. AndyWallHole (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly newspapers published in small towns don't count toward whether the topic meets WP:GNG or not. They're acceptable for some supplementary confirmation of facts after the article has already passed GNG on better classes of sourcing than that, but a community weekly cannot make a person notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia if it is the best source you've got. Bearcat (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on the strength of the two published books alone. The books are well known within Amazonian Shamanism circles, even though it is a subject that does not receive mainstream media coverage due to its controversial nature. Starzagger (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source coverage is the absolute be-all and end-all of whether a person gets a Wikipedia article or not. If that reliable source coverage isn't there, the person does not get to claim an "unreferenced or poorly referenced inclusion" freebie on the basis of being known in some under-the-radar community outside the reach of reliable source coverage. That coverage doesn't necessarily have to be mainstream — but it does have to exist and it does has to be reliable. Bearcat (talk) 22:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 16:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 16:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 16:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete What we lack here are reliable third-party sources. The Atencion San Miguel is a local news source run by volunteers (and based out of the public library -- I like that aspect). But it can't be considered truly neutral because we don't have a clear editorial policy. Then there are links to speaker bios (not RS), his own works (book and CD), gallery exhibits (not RS because they are selling his work). Elamagazine is a site where you list your own art. This means that there isn't one third-party RS. Note that if deleted there will be some link clean-up. LaMona (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per the guideline rationale's of Bearcat and LaMona. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources cited seem notable enough to keep. MB298 (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Atención San Miguel counts for something. Although WP:RS and WP:BIO make pertinent general observations such as "the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication," neither explicitly disqualifies newspaper sources based on "localness", frequency of publication, circulation, paid staff, or whether they have a published editorial policy. For me the problem is that Atención San Miguel is the only arms length reliable source. Searches of the usual Google types, HighBeam, newspapers.com, newspaperarchive.com, and EBSCO turned up only this mention in the Kansas City Star, where a collector describes Osta as an "up-and-coming artist". People and things that are up-and-coming have, almost by definition, rarely received the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources necessary to be included in Wikipedia. Worldbruce (talk) 07:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "up and coming" is a term that could mean any number of things. To me that article suggests that the artist's work is present in important collections and qualified for being notable.
• Keep These sources are notable. I've seen video games on Wikipedia with less notability. But then I guess that is Wikipedia's target audience! I'm wondering just how dated Wikipedia's going to look after all the newspapers have dried up? C'est la vie! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 16:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please be more specific: which sources are "notable"? Polemic is fine but it doesn't help the closing administrator make up their mind. Drmies (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've also seen much less notable articles on Wikipedia. Not even sure why this one is up for discussion. Living artists are rarely written about in newspapers, but to me the sources show a steady local and international presence over many years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyWallHole (talk • contribs) 21:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The artist's work is part of important collections internationally, as proven the Kansas City Star article, by Atencion articles, and by the more recent National Geographic photo of his work. His artwork was published in the book "Ayahuasca Medicine" by Simon and Schuster and he has exhibited with very notable artists such as Toller Cranston and Pablo Amaringo. He should be considered notable for his links to these artists alone, but considering also his two books, I would say this is definitely a keep. I do not see any reason for this article to be deleted. Shalomita77 (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Four keep !votes from new users with a total history of nine edits suggests possible sock- or meatpuppetry. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I signed up to Wikipedia just to vote keep on this one because I am personally familiar with the person's work and feel passionately about the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shalomita77 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 13 November 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.