Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RHNigl

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled R. Henry Nigl.

This page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to delete the article.

Sure, he exists (see [1]) but is he important? Not as far as I can tell. Isomorphic 06:51, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Nor I. Delete. (I am going to be following some of his physics threads in my spare time, though - interesting). --SWAdair | Talk 07:43, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
A wide range of artists, authors and performers, especially in an open content encyclopedia, forms an important knowledge base for scholars. Note: I am a visual artist, not a physicist, mathematician or economist. Additionally, 'Shout Art,' is a unique poetic structure subsequently taken up by Japanese groups and performers. You may wish to rethink your request based on your familiarity with the arts. RHN
- And you may wish to review our policy at Wikipedia:Autobiography. We are not in the habit of accepting someone's own word that they are important, as a rather large number of people hold such opinions. This particularly seems to afflict artists, musicians, and others whose careers would benefit from free publicity. An odd coincidence, don't you think? Isomorphic 12:01, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. The answer lies here: http://www.exoptica.com/nigl/hn_bio2.html RHN

- Hmm. That would tend to suggest that you aren't him, wouldn't it? My apologies. Still, when you sign your posts "RHN" and you call yourself a visual artist, I think you can see where my assumption came from. Furthermore, a google search for Nigl + "shout art" brings up nothing at all. He appears to be a successful artist, but not an especially notable one. The Maine Arts Commission lists him among 955 other visual artists in Maine. How do I know that he's more important than most of them? I see nothing in this press release that makes him anything more than a moderately successful artist. Isomorphic 16:01, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- Artists, in all forms must be closely identified with their own ego, it is an essential component of the creative, interpretive process. So to as with all creative insights, theoretical science, applied science, theology, philosophy, and maybe everyday 'living.' The 'self' is the first test of validity in any undertaking. If an interpretation of success or recognition is necessary for a short biographical statement, say from a child for a parent, who is not to say aye or nay. Wikipedia is wonderful tool and should have the systems available to it to allow entries for virtually anybody, including the trivial. I'm certain the funding and financial contstraints are now becoming apparent for those who manage Wikipedia. In theory, however, and if only in a genological context relative to an individual's 'life's' work--a 'place-in-record,' especially for those working in creative fields, albeit, individual, private, even hermetic creative undertakings, is needed.RHN
  - So what you're saying here is that this article is, indeed, self-promotion. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:33, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, it's unlikely that this is self-promotion, since R. Henry Nigl died in April according to the site linked above. It does seem to be a friend or relative or something like that, though. Isomorphic 18:23, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with Isomorphic. --Stormie 00:55, May 16, 2004 (UTC)
I almost said "keep" before I read the autobiographer's self promotional responses. Delete. DO'Neil 09:09, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Contains no verifiable information to support the subject's being encyclopedic. Andrewa 13:29, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I don't anything notable. Delete -- Cyrius|&#9998 22:42, May 16, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Art is not 'science.' But, Science is 'art.' (for my dad. RHN)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue or the deletion should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.