Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean-Pierre Schecroun (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus‎. Sandstein 14:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Pierre Schecroun

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:PERP. All I could find is a passing mention in a Time article about something completely unrelated. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and France. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe merge into Art forgery? I don't find any online RS, But see these [1] [2] [3] It looks like he was included in The Art Game by Robert Wraight (1966). Anyone have access to the print copy of this book? WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is an unsourced claim in the article that eight forgeries netted £25,000; that's not a lot. By comparison, Han van Meegeren got an estimated "$30 million (approximately US$254 million in 2022)". Clarityfiend (talk) 06:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any SIGCOV of him. 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As an initial side note, WP:PERP seems to be rather confused about itself, and links out to WP:WELLKNOWN for its criterion for being "well-known". But WELLKNOWN is part of BLP and is focused on "public figure" as a privacy standard. I'm not sure that's coherent enough to try to follow, but in any event, for the following reasons, I'd say it is safe to say that Schecroun is/was well-known in that sense. For starters, his 1962 arrest and confession attracted massive worldwide attention (e.g. Reuters, UPI, NYTNS). That was certainly the peak of his fame, but it wasn't entirely the end of it. For example, in 1974 he was featured in an Omnibus episode titled "Don't Take It For Granted", in which he apparently showed how forgery is done. Jeppson gave him a three-page profile with some excellent biographical detail in Fabulous Frauds (1970). Catherine Dossin has briefer but nontrivial coverage in The Rise and Fall of American Art (Routledge, 2016). I have reached my personal limit for the night but I have no sense of being anywhere near running out of coverage. -- Visviva (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 29 June 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.