Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berge Missakian

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 keep. The consensus here is the sources recently found meet GNG. All that is needed is for these references to make their way from this AFD to the article under discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Berge Missakian

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

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

Biography of an artist, not

WP:BEFORE search for other sources all I get is event calendar or directory listings, blogs and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things rather than real reliable source coverage that's substantively about him. Simply having existed is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on his sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Egypt, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Nothing found in Gnews, nothing in the Getty ULAN, confirmation that his artwork exists, but nothing for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Earlier version of this article did have some references, such as "Missakian's Fluid Cubism Takes Shape In Happy, Jazzy Blend" a 2008 review by Birmingham News' art critic, and a 2005 Art Business News article which is now accessible here. The Benezit Dictionary of Artists does have an entry on him: [1] (which unfortunately cannot be fully read through Wikipedia Library at the moment), and there is a 1998 exhibition review from The Virginian Pilot here. AllyD (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider sources discovered by AllyD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the references found by AllyD. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm happy with the new sources, passes GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, I am also happy with the type of sources as they are certainly RS, though one or two more would help in establishing
WP:SIGCOV and not a few mentions as a result of his passing.— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep meets GNG. Bruxton (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2023 (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.