Talk:Richard Misiano-Genovese

Untitled

What to do with the URL for the Arte.net listing? It is not linking properly. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:23, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

So... what happens in a case like this? Oberiko 15:52, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Unless the complainant can proove he is Richard Genovase (through an official website or similar) do we have any reason to listen to him? Anyone can come along and claim to be a famous person in this way. Mr. Jones 13:52, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Even if he can proove he is Richard Genovese we still shouldn't listen to him. In this particular case, it looks like this is going to get deleted anyway, since we have no proof that there even is a Richard Genovese. Anthony DiPierro 13:59, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This assertion is utterly ridiculous. Did you check any of the cites he provided? Did you look up Par*faite on the World Wide Web? The guy was even in Who's Who in America one year and Who's Who in American Art another. Give me a break. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:01, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What's ridiculous? Where's the proof? How hard is it to get in Who's Who in America and Who's Who in American Art?

The idea that "we have no proof that there even is a Richard Genovese" is ridiculous. There are references in the article itself, and until they are checked and found wanting I don't think anyone should be saying something like this. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:31, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Until they are checked, we have no proof. Anthony DiPierro 19:42, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

So check them. As there is no way for the provider of cites to also check the sites he provides, the cites should be checked by anyone who is interested, who wants to challenge them, &c. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:14, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

When I get a chance, I probably will. Of course it's not clear to me that a listing in Who's Who is proof of anything. Anthony DiPierro 17:38, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What edition was it?

Look at the article. The references are there. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:31, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I thought Who's Who in America would accept anyone in order to try and get them to buy the book.

I don't know how easy it is to get into Who's Who in America. But this is not the issue at this point. The issue is that there is some recognition of Genovese beyond what can be seen on a Google search and if anyone would bother to read the article itself they would see that. Who's Who in America is not the same as Who's Who in American High Schools, which, though you overstate the ease of getting into it to a slight degree, is very easy to get into (I was in it). --Daniel C. Boyer 19:31, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You claimed that he was in Who's Who in America was evidence that he was well-known. So how easy it is to get in there most certainly is an issue. As for misstating how easy it is to get into Who's Who in American High Schools, I didn't misstate anything. I was in it. It was just a ploy to get people to buy the book. Anthony DiPierro 19:45, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why you are continuing to conflate a wide range of books by different publishers is beyond me. There are quite a few Who's Whos by quite a few different publishers; some of them are difficult to get into and some are not. With quite a lack of precision you are saying that Who's Who in American High Schools is identical to, or very similar to, every Who's Who, and this is clearly not the case. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:49, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I never conflated anything. I never said anything was identical to anything else. I questioned how easy it was to get into Who's Who in America. Anthony DiPierro 22:09, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If I remember correctly I was given an entry in Who's Who in American Schools or some crap like that when I was in High School and sent some order form to order the book. If I see proof that this guy existed, I'll gladly change my vote back to keep. Anthony DiPierro 18:49, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Undeletion

Was not kept on vfd for proper time-frame; on vfd and then not on vfd. Should be kept on vfd continuously for full time-frame. Significant surrealist theorist and originator of several methods; driving force behind Par*faite magazine. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:09, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• Undelete. Anthony DiPierro 00:31, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - policy was revised to delete if the clear concensus is to delete - Texture 00:52, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • There was no clear consensus to delete. Anthony DiPierro 18:50, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• Please provide evidence showing the date it was removed from vfd. You have a history of removing items from vfd when the consensus is to delete. That's not going to work here. --Jiang
  • See http://en.wiki.x.io/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion&oldid=2361261 . Proof. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:35, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • See [1]. It was removed from vfd by Meelar with the comment (remove "Richard Genovese"--no consensus). It's unclear whether the VfD tag was ever added. This should definitely be undeleted. Anthony DiPierro 18:50, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• Undelete. Everyking 00:17, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. It was clearly marked for deletion for 7 days. The 5 February version displays a VfD notice which Daniel removed for some reason on February 12. Angela. 11:27, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Did you even look at [2]? It was removed from vfd at 05:49, 11 Feb 2004 with three votes to keep and three votes to delete. Anthony DiPierro 14:03, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• Undelete. 1) There was no consensus (3/3). 2) He was encyclopedic; helped initiate a minor trend in surrealist art. -- Seth Ilys 14:17, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • The reason for undeletion can not be that it was not listed on VfD long enough as clearly it was listed there for at least 5 days, and the VfD notice was on it for at least 7. I don't object to it being undeleted for some other reason, but I think Jiang's original deletion of the article is justifiable. Angela. 14:21, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

This has twice been recreated since it was listed here, and as there appears to be no consensus on the original deletion, and Seth reckons it's verifiable, I've undeleted it. Angela. 20:35, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

Deletion

• Richard Genovese - irrelevant surrealist. --Wik 22:22, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Why is he irrelevant? Mark Richards 22:26, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Because I voted for the pages undeletion and Wik doesn't like me. Anthony DiPierro 22:57, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Google search finds no evidence of serious recognition. Just self-promotion, and even much less of that than, for example, Daniel C. Boyer, and we don't have an article on him either. --Wik 22:55, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
      • However, a search of books would find the cites listed right on the page. He's listed in Who's Who in America and Who's Who in American Art and there is no evidence of serious recognition? You have got to be kidding me. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:24, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable surrealist artist whose reason for having a page here is that he associated with prolific wikipedia contributor, Daniel C. Boyer. Maximus Rex 01:09, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Kill all surrealists.—Eloquence
    • The anti-surrealist bias that keeps purging relevant articles on surrealism from Wikipedia can now be seen in much clearer focus. Who can contradict me on this point now? --Daniel C. Boyer 16:02, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • As Eloquence has now admitted this bias, I would argue that we should disregard his vote. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:24, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I guess we can just keep listing articles here until they finally get deleted? No vote until I see some verification. IHL. HAND. Anthony DiPierro 04:06, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Everyking 04:19, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: irrelevant, personal promotion. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:58, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • comment only: This page is now being vandalized by someone claiming to be Richard Genovese. Anthony DiPierro 15:20, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Blank until verified. Anthony DiPierro 19:48, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why is this moved here again? This is a clear 2/3 majority for deletion. --Wik 15:15, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

It went through Votes for undeletion. And why are you ignoring all my points? The references clearly show a lack of obscurity, and yet obscurity is still being argued. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:37, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Since Wik removed this from VfD, I presume that he is withdrawing his vote for deletion? Martin 18:07, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Stop playing silly games, Martin. --Wik 18:09, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

*shrug* Stop playing silly games, Wik? You removed this page from VfD. Since Wikipedia's process is that this page should have to go through VfD to be deleted, I can only assume that you have given up on getting this page deleted following normal Wikipedia process.

If you wish to change Wikipedia's deletion process, I suggest you take it to wikipedia talk:deletion policy. Martin 18:15, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Quite obviously it's you who's violating the normal Wikipedia deletion process by refusing to delete a page that was on VfD 7 days, with a 2/3 majority for deletion, even when this is explicitly pointed out to you. --Wik 18:17, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

In my view, there isn't currently a rough consensus favouring for deletion. If I were to delete it, I would be going against the deletion guidelines for administrators.

Since you apparently still want this page deleted, I have added it back to wikipedia:votes for deletion for further consideration. I am sure that in due course an administrator will either delete it, if sie believes that there is rough consensus for deletion, or de-list it without deleting, if sie believes that there is no consensus. Martin 18:25, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

From VfD (again)

Richard Genovese

- was previously listed, got 2/3 majority to delete, was not deleted. I'll list it again until it is either deleted or there is a fixed definition of the criteria for deletion. It is absurd that any sysop can decide "2/3 is not a good enough consensus for me" and remove it from here without deleting it. --Wik 16:33, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

• • Keep but blank until it is proven that there is a such person. Anthony DiPierro 16:48, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • This is ridiculous. There are references provided on the page, and previous versions of the page show a great many more references. Other than the references provided, which you can certainly look up, what kind of "proof" are you looking for? --Daniel C. Boyer 16:58, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Who's Who has doubtful credibility in my mind. And I'm not even sure what edition is being referred to. Is it claimed that he's in every edition since 1982? The parfaite reference is written by you. That's original research, and isn't credible enough. The arte.net link doesn't even work, but doesn't seem credible. Exhibition catalogue is hosted on a free home page. Not credible at all. If the Who's Who reference turns out to be real, and it turns out to be a respected source, then I'd recommend that this be restored. But until then or some other verification comes along, I don't think this belongs in Wikipedia. Anyway, that's my suggestion, you don't have to like it. But if you're intending your comment as a keep vote please be specific so Wik doesn't bring this back here yet again. Anthony DiPierro 17:08, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • The Par*faite reference is not "written by me" in the sense that I am a contributor to Par*faite as is Genovese but I am not the editor. To describe as "original research" the fact that two men contributed to the same magazine is as bizarre a distortion of language as I've probably ever seen. The same thing could be said about the Richard Genovese page on Upland Trout, for example; Genovese contributed to Upland Trout and so did I and so did a number of others -- is Upland Trout thus my "original research"? If you think that an exhibition catalogue resides solely online it is just another characteristic of the recurrent problem I've seen in Wikipedia, that no matter what they say, people ignore offline sources, and demand that the "confirmation" for the existence of everything (which they demand in extravagant profusion when the topic is one they don't like) is their oracle, Google. Google can be helpful, but when it becomes the be-all and end-all, and Wikipedia is transformed into an eyclopedic rehash of information available through a Google search, the very value of Wikipedia comes into question. I am not hinting at a "keep" vote, by the way, just making some points. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:42, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • My apologies on Par*faite. I thought it was written solely by you. If it's available in print that's news to me, I have no idea where I could get it. You didn't answer my question abobut the Who's Who edition. I'd love to verify this, but I don't really have anything to go on. If Par*faite is available in print, where can I get it? I assume I could get a copy of Who's Who, but I'm not clear on the edition (and I might not be able to get 1982). Anthony DiPierro 17:52, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
            • Apology accepted. It's sort of available in "print" (it's a CD-ROM magazine); see http://parfaite.digitalartsites.com/offerings.html. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:15, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Again. Everyking 20:29, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: insignificant. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:40, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable surrealist artist whose reason for having a page here is that he associated with prolific wikipedia contributor, Daniel C. Boyer. Maximus Rex 01:09, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • What is your basis for this assertion? Certainly his association with me is one of the least relevant things about him. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:18, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. JDR
  • Keep b/c verifiable. I don't know what makes a 'notable' surrealist; the refs on the page satisfy me. (why waste time deleting verifiable pages when there is so much junk still out there?) +sj+ 11:02, 2004 Mar 5 (UTC)
    • However, if Genovese himself comes here and makes a case for deletion, change my vote to Delete.

from VfD

On 11 Mar 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Richard Genovese.

Revert war

Knock it off, or this page will be protected until you can work out your dispute. -- Infrogmation 17:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As reverts have continued with no attempt at discussion, page has been protected. -- Infrogmation 22:17, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As there has been no discussion here in about a week, I've unprotected this article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Factual Dispute

I don't think there's any genuine dispute over the factual accuracy of the article. The tag should be removed. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)