Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Cotterill

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 - Given references do not establish notability as they are not reliable.. Chillum 15:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Cotterill

[edit]
Tim Cotterill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete First prod read: "no sources since being tagged in May 2008, quick Google search shows no reason to believe this person is notable by Wikipedia standards. Worldcat search for the ISBNs listed as his books show no matches for either." A prod tag in agreement was added, saying: "Falls well short of WP:BIO, with no independent coverage in reliable sources. Even the cited books are self-published." Both of these prod tags, as well as the tags about no sources and etc., were remoeved by an editor who claimed he added sources but added more links to the artist's own site, a mere blog, and the claims to being world famous as written by the artist statement as put on the web page of a gallery selling his work. This is a massive failure of WP:RS standards (no reliable, independent sources), and the article was created by the artist himself. DreamGuy (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If what you are claiming is even remotely true, then you should have no problems finding sources that meet WP:RS to document it. Considering you were the editor who removed the prod tags and added sources that dramatically fail WP:RS as your justification for doing so, I can only conclude that the above is just bluff and bluster. From your talk page comments and edit history it seems you make a habit of going around removing prods and voting keep on most everything. DreamGuy (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you making this so personal? Why do you feel the need to comment against every editor who has a different point of view than your own? Please allow other editors to make their comments without your harassment.Esasus (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So educating you about policies you either do not know or care to follow is harassment? Explaining why someone's arguments are wrong is somehow bad when I do it, but when you try (and fail) you think that's perfectly fine? You have a pretty odd idea of how you think things should work here. DreamGuy (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are only 43 hits in Google news, which is extremely low for a supposed world-famous artist. Many are clearly just reprints of pres releases sent out by the author himself. I'm not seeing any in here that would meet both the nontrivial mention AND the independent, third party criteria of our rules for such things. DreamGuy (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but almost all of those 43 are reliable sources. Almost all of those 43 are specifically about this artist, and are not trivial mentions as they go into some depth about his work and its reception. They provide evidence that he was featured on a regional TV show. They provide evidence that his work has featured in significant exhibitions in a number of locations. Take together, they provide plenty of sources for this article, and clearly are sufficient to pass WP:N, so I don't understand what people seem to have against this artist? JulesH (talk) 09:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per policy, press releases are not independent of the subject. Can someone point to specific references that are believed to demonstrate notability? References to a page of search results are not helpful. Bongomatic 06:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. However none of the items I linked to are press releases, and very few (perhaps only one) of those in the google search are. JulesH (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

frog break 1

[edit]
  • Delete - no reliable independent sources cited - all his own, or galleries selling his stuff. Also, Wikipedia should not be used for self-promotion. JohnCD (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without a doubt. I have looked at all the citations given, and given my findings in detail on the article's talk page, but in brief, as JohnCD says above, they are "his own, or galleries selling his stuff". The claims above that it should be kept on the basis of lots of Google hits indicate, I think, a lack of understanding of what Wikipedia is about, quite apart from the questionable nature of those hits, as mentioned above by others. As for the comment "This artist is creating a very unique and valuable ($$) contribution ...", I wonder what on earth the writer thinks Wikipedia is supposed to be.

JamesBWatson (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • To answer the above question: I think that Wikipedia is supposed to be a compendium of information compiled on Wikipedia for ease of reference for anyone who wishes to utilize it. The article on this artist is useful. Tim Cotterill art can be found "everywhere". He is notable by the prolific nature of his art. It seems to me that those arguing for delete are suggesting that because google hits show galleries selling his art, the article should be deleted because of self-promotion. An artist must be a self-promoter to be successful. This artist is successful. I seems to me that the real issue is Wikipedia:I Don't Like It.Esasus (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He is very notable. Even if the several The Gallery links publish a similar artist bio, it does not diminish that fact that all of these many Galleries are all third party sources which evidence that they display this artist. 13,700 hits! What is the debate? Keep this article. Wordssuch (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Above editor account was created today, exists solely to make some trivial edits, vote on a couple of AFDs, and to go around adding what appear to be bad faith deletion tags to articles I created. Looks like a clear sockpuppet/revenge account. DreamGuy (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who is DreamGuy, and why is he so antagonistic?Wordssuch (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What, you thought that I wasn't going to notice and be a little upset at your going through the list of articles I created, many of which are years old and have been edited by hundreds of people, and putting completely pointless tags at the top of them claiming that they aren't notable and filing ridiculous speedy deletes and prods for reasons that if applied to this article would have had it deleted days ago already? Well, whatever. Petty harassment isn't going to work. This article will be deleted and the ones you tagged won't, because mine follow Wikipedia policies and this one doesn't. DreamGuy (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

frog break 2

[edit]
  • Delete Despite my earlier involvement in formatting and cleaning up this article, notability is not established by the references and no other significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the person who seconded the prod. The problem remains: it's still a vanity page with nothing from independent reliable sources to demonstrate WP:BIO. Listing his publications doesn't help the cause: third person reviews of his work (not on a blog or anything that is self published like a fansite) would. B.Wind (talk) 04:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per meeting the requirements of WP:CREATIVE in that the article's sources (added since nomination) now show "The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries." His strange little frogs have been a significant part or the entire focus of dozens of exhibitions across the US. Its wild. Its bronze. And it croaks. Sad that the article has sat unattended since May, but it will greatly benefit form copyedit and expansion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which of those exhibitions, galleries, or museums is notable? Note that I'm not claiming that none of them is, just that none is identified as such. There are dozens of non-notable exhibitions, galleries, and museums all across the US. Bongomatic 07:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually not a concern, as guideline states "substantial part of a significant exhibition", and has no requirement that the venue holding the exhibition has to itself be notable. If you insist I do some pointless search, I can likley find suitable articles about enough of the galleies apart from the frogman, to show that they themselves have enough notability. Sheesh. There are hundreds of them. Must I really do all that work for you? Let's use logic for a moment. Galleries do not show works if they do not have enough notability to interest patrons... or if patrons do not respond well, the work does not survive attemps to show at other galleries and quickly vanishes. This guy has been in hundreds. Stupid frogs. And the hundreds of exhibitions over 35 years aside, being notable enough to be on NBC shows a reliable source that further acknowledges his work as notable. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a creative, but specious argument. There is no assumption that the random commercial enterprise (and that's what a gallery is) is notable. Most are not. While I don't think there's a guideline on notability of art galleries, one imagines that such a guideline would start with the idea that notable galleries (a) hold exhibitions that receive significant media coverage in independent reliable sources; (b) exhibit works of notable artists (this is seemingly circular until you remember that most artists do not claim notability simply by being exhibited at certain galleries); or (c), like anything, they receive significant non-trivial coverage about themselves. Hence, to demonstrate notability, the notability of the galleries must also be demonstrated. The inclusion of the word "notable" to "exhibition" and to "galleries or museums" in WP:CREATIVE cannot be interpreted to be meaningless, which the gravity-defying logic in the previous comment would do.
The same logic applies to the notability of specific exhibitions. Bongomatic 08:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now who's making a specious argument? WP:CREATIVE is a part of WP:PEOPLE and has been refined over and over by better editors than you or I. I will not second guess these editors or wonder why they included that sentence "substantial part of a significant exhibition" in WP:CREATIVE to define a requirement of notability and then somehow "forgot" to demand that the exhibition or gallery itself had to be notable in order for that requirement to apply. In all their wisdom and years of refining CREATIVE, they did not. And despite protestations, the gallery itself need not meet a criteria that does not yet exist. You are quite welcome to write up a "guideline" to describe what nakes a gallery notable or not.. and then include that seperate notability requirement in CREATIVE... but until that guideline exists, I will happily accept what WP:CREATIVE does require and your own quite creative supposition falls apart. The article is about an artist. His work meets the requirements of guideline. The article is not about a gallery. Point of information, much of your idea was discussed at the failed proposal Wikipedia:Notability (artists)... but as a guideline it was rejected. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm . . . I guess we disagree over what a "significant" exhibition is. It seems obvious to me that to be "significant", an exhibition has to meet some hurdle other than "it happened". To refactor the original question above, what is the indication that any of the exhibitions is "significant"? Bongomatic 09:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might have looked yourself, no? Sheesh. At just a quck peek, Lamantia Gallery, Vinings Gallery, Christopher Bell Gallery, Borsini-Burr Gallery, Devin Gallery, Hallmark Fine Arts Gallery, Shaffer Fine Art Gallery, et all look like they may have enough on them to pass an imaginary WP:Notability (gallery). As for significant... a broader question, as what is significant to an art gallery is not significant to a baseball stadium. Does your new question mean that the exhibition has to be entirely dedicated to one artist's work? Or that the artist's work comprise a major part of an overall exhibition at a gallery? Does the exhibitian have to be significant to the artists in its area? Or is it expected that an exhibition only counts if its at some prestigious location? Does significant mean it must be significant the artists in its area? Or that it must shake the walls of the Lourve? It is rare that art exhibitions receive coverage outside the area where the exhibition is being held. It is a rare event (like the travelling King Tut stuff of some years back) that even gets press coverage... so notability must be considered in context with what is being considered. Damn frogs. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

frog break 3

[edit]
So you trust the artist' own web page on that? If we had independent sources, sure. We don't know that these are not paid advertising, etc. And, as mentioned a zilliont ime above and on talk, the news results are primarily trivial and reprints of press releases. How sloppy. DreamGuy (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DreamGuy, I did not so naive to post these articles in an attempt to convince you, please.
So you trust the artist' own web page on that?
No, I trust me own eyes. Take two seconds to look at the site. The sculptor added photos and links to the articles in question. I know that the long article in Collect will not qualify as an indepent source to you, nor the Arts d'Elles et d'Ils, but I think other netural editors will see that notability policy has been met. Ikip (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Western Art & Architecture" is a paid-membership publication, so this artist's profile there is self-authored and therefore not a legitimate source. freshacconci talktalk 19:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you verify that Freshacconci? thanks Ikip (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just doing that now. freshacconci talktalk 19:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link to his member's profile. At the top of the page there's info on becoming a member. Notice the text in the member's profile is identical to the text in the artist's profile he shows on his website as an independent feature in Western Art & Architecture. freshacconci talktalk 19:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Collect It! and Arts d'Elles et d'Ils appear to be trade publications with a (possible) pay-to-play situation. It's difficult to find much about Art World News. This may be a legitimate third-party source, but as such would appear to be the only one. freshacconci talktalk 19:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I took a look at the info page for Arts d'Elles et d'Ils found here. My English-Canadian high school French is piss-poor, but the gist of what it says is that there is no selection criteria for appearing in this magazine. It may not be a paid listing but it's an open listing. Someone with more advanced French may want to double-check my translation, but if I'm correct, this is not a legitimate source. freshacconci talktalk 19:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RE nominators messsage on my talk page User talk:Ikip: [2]
Actually, there is some information that Freshacconci was nice enough to provide, but nothing conclusive. The Collect it! article in particular seems to be from an independent source. For BLP reasons, I would be careful about saying such things as "scammed by the guy, admit your impression was influenced by deceptive promotional tactics". I personally always try to assume that every new editor has the best intentions in mind. I believe every good faith editor is valuable, and has a lot to add to the project when he comes to wikipedia.
Freshacconci is the person who argues that some of these magazines may be promotional, but he is voting weak keep, I think this is "intellectually honest". Do you?
And just a suggestion, a couple of months ago I asked a nominator for deletion to close the nomination because the evidence I had provided. Instead he came back and argued even more for deletion. The tone of your message almost guarantees that I am not going to come back here in a good mood, ready to comprimise and admit I am wrong. In otherwords, I probably would have forgotten this AfD if it weren't for your message, but now I am back, one more person to shoot holes in your arguments, that isn't good for your quest to delete a "scam" and "deceptive promotional tactics". Ikip (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

frog break 4

[edit]

(outdent) Weak keep Looking through the google search: on one hand, there's a huge list of legitimate sources who mention Cotterill in passing. On the other hand, they are all the result of press-release announcements (i.e. Cotterill or representative galleries have sent out the P.R. and papers decide to run it as is, or rewrite it based on the copy given). Were these the only sources available, and were considerably far less in number, this would be a clear delete. The sources would be trivial and not substantial. But as MichaelQSchmidt has pointed out below, the siginficant number of trivial sources add up to substantial coverage. The use of pay-for-play sources is discouraging and these should be removed. I'm always more comfortable with more substantitive sources, sources with some meat to them. But WP:NOTE doesn't require that. This article needs a good thorough edit and those editors with a connection to the artist should step back and let other, more neutral editors clean this up so it does not function as yet another promotional vehicle for the artist (note his linking to Wikipedia here. But in any case, whatever I may feel about this guy's work, he has some notability by the very basic definition of notability for Wikipedia. Also, I'd like to point out the bad-faith editing and stalking of DreamGuy engaged in by Wordssuch. The latter needs to be cautioned about such practices. We can all disagree here, but that kind of behaviour isn't helpful. freshacconci talktalk 20:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sloppy? There are sources offered by the proffered g-search (and discounting the articles about a different Cotterill) that were NOT the artist's website that show his work as being exhibited at numerous galleries worldwide. The January 2008 Art World News coverage of Cotterill was short, but it explicitly told how one of his works was to be part of a permanent installation. The article in Collect it! Magazine as written by Val Baynton was most definitely in-depth and significant coverage of the artist and his works. Continued refusal to recognize the notability of this fellow becomes more and more confusing in light of the overwhelming evidence. Further confusion is caused by dismissively ignoring the multiple in-depth articles, and then concentrating on some perceived flaw in the use of SPS... since they are specifically allowed in certain circumstances under existing guideline.
  1. The first proviso of WP:PEOPLE states "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."... and as a multi exhibited artist, and one whose works have become part of permanent istallations, he is worthy of notice PER GUIDELINE.
  2. WP:PEOPLE also grants that "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject", so you may not like it, but the use of primary sources is specifically allowed by the guideline. You are welcome to propose rewriting the guideline if you wish, but please don't dismiss it as inapplicable.
  3. Further, WP:PEOPLE states, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". What has been offered to editors are sources that are either "significant and in-depth" OR "more than trivial but less than exclusive" OR "that show his work as repeatedly and continually exhibited". Unless one simply does not like the artist or his works, it is painfully obvious that he meets the inclusion criteria.
Damn frogs. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we assume some good faith here? This is a discussion and you are attempting to make editors' minds up for them with logic games (i.e. if you don't agree with my logic then you must be !voting for deletion based on subjective criteria). As far as I'm concerned, none of the sources are conlusive yet. I'd like to look through some more sources. I've already found one pay-to-play source used. That indicates more could be as well. freshacconci talktalk 19:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies to you, as my response was to the nom's statement above calling another editor sloppy. My own searches have found multiple sources toward notability under WP:CREATIVE that are not pay-per-view. My concern is for his declaring the artist and his works as non-notable in direct contravention to guideline, and felt compelled to carefully point out the applicable guideline in response to his not acknowledging them. Yes, AGF all around. That being said, I trust your own diligent search will include world-wide library databases and newspaper/magazine archives that are not pay-per-view. Luck to you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm trying to do. This is part of what I do for a living. Research, that is, not hunting sources for Wikipedia. Nobody's paying me for that (yet). freshacconci talktalk 19:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From your comments above, that was my specific impression. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my statement that claiming those as reliable sources for notability was sloppy. Those were, in fact, paid ads and press releases. Anyone off the street who pays money could get in those. The artist is clearly trying to look more impressive than he is by quoting ads he bought as if they were independent news articles. It's a classic scam, and some people fell for it. That's extremely sloppy. Sorry if you're offended by that. Take it as a learning experience to avoid being duped in the future instead of blaming the messenger. 14:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment As I comment below, the practice of newspapers paroting press releases says something about newspaper standards, but that's a distinction we can make here. The fact is, numerous publication independent of the artist have mentioned this artist. Yes, the individual newspaper "articles" (I use the term reservedly and with tongue held tight) are trivial. But that there are more than a few adds up to substantial coverage by third-party sources, regardless of quality. There's nothing we can do about it if we follow Wikipedia policy. freshacconci talktalk 14:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Our criteria is for multiple independent (pres releases are not) non-trivial (mere mentions, etc., are not) sources establishing notability. NOTHING like that has ever been shown about this person. Far from it, in fact. The consistent lack of any independent nontrivial sources for someone who appears in so many shops is very telling. He's had all the chances in the world for people to take notice on their own, and they haven't. That's pretty clear cut indication that this person is not taken seriously by the art world at large. DreamGuy (talk) 14:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

frog break 5

[edit]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. Searches by disinterested editors appear to have found plenty of good newpaper articles that show this is a notable artist. Bearian (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yes, he's mentioned in a number of newspapers, but as far as I can see they're all gallery listings, what's-on in town kind of things. That would be OK if the exhibitions were significant (ie museum shows). Fails WP:CREATIVE because the exhibitions aren't significant, and fails WP:BIO because the coverage is trivial. The NBC segment looks to me to be the definition of trivial.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are in disagreement with interpretation of that portion of WP:CREATIVE. However, I am fine with the total body of worlwide coverage... the trivial, the more-than-trivial, and the substantive all adding up to notability per guideline. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Note that the word "gallery" has two quite distinct meanings in connection with art. There are "galleries" which exist to display arts of the public, on the basis of merit: in other words effectively museums. Then there "galleries" which exist to act as sales points, on the basis of a commercial arrangement with the artist; in other words effectively shops. I have looked at the websites of all of the galleries mentioned above by Schmidt. Most of them clearly were and the others apparently were commercial galleries selling his works: in other words we are asked to think he is notable because he pays the owners of numerous shops to stock his products. This is not remotely the same as having his works displayed in several independent galleries, which display work to the public on the basis of perceived merit. Anyone could arrange to have their work sold by numerous art shops, so this is no measure at all of notability. Thus when Wordssuch says "Even if the several The Gallery links publish a similar artist bio, it does not diminish that fact that all of these many Galleries are all third party sources which evidence that they display this artist" he is mistaken: they are not independent third party sources, and the only thing they show "evidence" for is the existence of a commercial arrangement with the artist.
Bearian says "searches by disinterested editors appear to have found plenty of good newpaper [sic] articles that show this is a notable artist". However, he does not tell us what newspaper articles or where. Certainly the articles listed by Ikip are not in newspapers in any reasonable sense of the word. Also they were not found by "searches by disinterested editors": Ikip simply quotes links on the artist's website.
I have carefully gone through every one of the comments above and followed up a significant proportion of the links given, and it seems that virtually all of the comments in favour of keeping the article are based on ignoring, or failing to appreciate, the difference between on the one hand a source which indicates a high degree of commercial activity and success in gaining attention, and on the other hand an independent source which indicates a high degree of notability. Neither the article nor the comments above succeed in indicating that the artist has notability in Wikipedia's sense. None of the sources given as support for notability is an independent source.
Finally the most remarkable (to me) comment of all: "this artist is creating a very unique and valuable ($$) contribution ...". Apparently the writer of this comment thinks that selling works for a lot of money makes one notable.
GeorgeWeller (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Of course, you need to ignore a few of the "keeps" simply because their !vote for keep is based on a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. Nevertheless your distinction between critical notability and commercial notability is not a distinction Wikipedia makes per WP:NOTE. Most of the google hits point to publications independent of the artist. That they are merely repeating points forwarded by a press release perhaps says something about the newspaper industry but, regardless, they point to a minor notability. A few trivial sources wouldn't cut it, but there are more than a few here. We cannot make a judgment on the art, nor how the artist shows his work or earns his living. We may not like Paris Hilton or feel that her notability is deserved. But she is notable nonetheless. With the sources available, this artist just squeaks by. If you look at my userpage or my contributions you'll see what kind of art I'm interested in. If I were writing a book on important contemporary art, my criteria for inclusion would be quite different from Wikipedia's notability standards. But as original research, my book could include whatever I wanted it to include. This is an encyclopedia and as such we remain neutral and make no judgments on the subjects. Consider it a flaw if you must, but that's how Wikipedia defines notability. This will never be a major article and I can't imagine it could make it to featured article status, given the lack of sources with depth, but the available sources, trivial as they may be, point to a minor notability. freshacconci talktalk 14:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This comment misinterprets GeorgeWeller's distinction. Of course there is a distinction between commercial and non-commercial mentions of products (which is GeorgeWeller's point)—this is why paid notices are not considered independent reliable sources, and why independent news coverage is considered to be such. This is not a question of "critical notability" versus "commercial notability." A non-notable product doesn't become notable simply because it is sold in a number of outlets—that simply isn't a criterion for notability. Bongomatic 14:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're ignoring the rest of what I said. There is independent coverage, like it or not. They're trivial fluff pieces, but the number basically adds up to notability by Wiki standards. freshacconci talktalk 14:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Bongomatic: you are quite right. The Wikipedia Notability guideline says "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. Contrary to what Freshacconci seems to think, information which comes from such sources is not "independent coverage". And no, I don't think Bongomatic was ignoring the rest of what Freshacconci said. GeorgeWeller (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple fluff pieces absolutely DO NOT make someone notable. Where on earth could you get that idea? If that's ALL the person has, it's a clear cut case of NOT being notable. DreamGuy (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I got that idea from here. It states, in full: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Note the last sentence. Trivial coverage may not be sufficient to establish notability. It clearlyy states may not not is not, i.e. it's a guideline open to interpretation and concensus, as it states at the top of that page: "This notability guideline for biographies is not policy; however, it reflects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article on a person should be written, merged, deleted or further developed." My interpretation of this guideline leans towards "keep" based on the multiple, independent sources, trivial as they may be. Sorry, that's my personal reading of the guideline, as crappy as this art is. freshacconci talktalk 14:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: A non-notable product doesn't become notable simply because it is sold in a number of outlets—that simply isn't a criterion for notability. -- is Special K notable? If so, why? THF (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

frog break 6

[edit]
  • I'm generally a deletionist, but this seems to me to be a Weak Keep and Improve under WP:CREATIVE: "The person has created [a] collective body of work [that] has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles". George Weller makes a very strong and persuasive argument why there is a distinction between a Cotterill and artists displayed in museums, but that just goes to the gallery prong of WP:CREATIVE. A commercial artist who sells popular collectibles (the spam filter won't let me link to Ebay here) is indistinguishable in that sense to a popular commercial WP:AUTHOR who sells his books to publishers who sell them to intermediate bookstores for resale--and we have lots of articles about minor genre authors who have sold much less than Cotterill has (recognizing that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not by itself a reason for inclusion). I don't see WP:CREATIVE as restricted to highbrow art. Cotterill's works are widely traded and known. There exist reliable sources (albeit not ones readily available on the web) from which an article can be written about his life and work. I think a number of the delete !votes are overreacting to the WP:PROMOTION violation, but WP:COI is not a reason by itself to delete an article. THF (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So find proof of multiple independent periodical articles instead of paid ads, press releases, and mere trivial mentions. So far nobody has been able to do it. And, honestly, COI is a strong indicator that an article should be deleted, as it shows that the person has to write about himself if he wants anyone to pay attention. No independent editor wrote this, just like no independent magazines cover him, and so forth. DreamGuy (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COI is not a reason for deletion. That's it. Get over it. And the google search clearly shows the independent coverage. Multiple trivial sources count. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is. freshacconci talktalk 14:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's NOT the way it is, and if yo make the claim that it is yo need to back that up with some actual Wikipedia policy. It's the exact OPPOSITE of what the policy says. Trivial sources do not count. It says so right in the policy. Period. DreamGuy (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated. Fails WP:BIO and WP:RS.--Cameron Scott (talk) 14:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Use the {{verify credibility}} or {{citecheck}} tags instead of removing sources. THF (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They've already BEEN reviewed and showed to NOT meet Wikipedia criteria. Complaining about their removal is just sheer stubborn wikilawyering and ignoring of policies to try to get one's own way. DreamGuy (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freshacconci's frog break

[edit]
  • Final comment I can't believe I've spent so much time on this. Arguing "keep" for a guy who makes fucking glass frogs. I was going to work on the Stan Douglas article. You know, an artist who's exhibited internationally, who's been written about in all the major art publications, been part of bieniales, major musuem collections. An article that is pretty crappy at the moment. Oh well. Onwards and upwards. freshacconci talktalk 14:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another final comment - Somebody's law is relevant here (I wish I could remember whose): "If you have to write your own article, you're not notable." JohnCD (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's not policy; but it's a witty reminder that if an article is self-promotion the references to establish notability need to be scrutinized with particular care. JohnCD (talk) 15:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No real evidence of wider repute, nor any real sources attesting to such. Nor is a gallery showing an automatic indication of anything other than of having work displayed: without actual reliable sources explaining why he's exhibiting or discussing his work, it's meaningless. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "A" gallery showing? Perhaps. Hundreds over 35 years? Different story. Perhaps time to rewrite the part of WP:CREATIVE that does not require RS explaining "why" he's exhibiting his work... that part that only states that he must have done so. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wish to voice my own growing concern over my perception of WP:IDONTLIKEIT on the part of the nom. It would seem a discussion best kept on this page was taken to the talk page of an editor who opined a keep... questioning their integrity and belief in the notability of this artist. diff 1. Bad form. And then to visit the page of an non-biased admin and question their interpretation of the ongoing discussion? diff 2. Bad form. That he chooses to ignore some arguments in favor, or dismisses other's interpretations of guideline is fine... but perhaps he might wait until the AfD is closed to make arguments best seen at a DRV? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've never before encountered an editor as antagonistic as DreamGuy. He argues against every opinion that differs from his own, then takes his abuse to the editor's talk page, and even into other discussions. I consider his tactics that of a bully, and I find his obsessive ownership of the delete opinion to be disruptive to the discussion. He has also been deleting references and external links from the article while the article is under discusion. What is the proper procedure to deal with such a guy? Esasus (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, enforcing clear Wikipedia policies is a GOOD thing. Reponding to false claims by people who aren;t following policy should be welcomed so that people can learn from their mistakes. You're just upset someone dares to disagree with you and has spooted your longstanding campaign to go around making false claims about articles up for deletion.
  • Sounds like a simple fix per WP:CLEANUP, not deletion. And it might be noted that while editors have been trying to address concerns at the article during this AfD, the nom is undoing them. Hard to improve an article to address concerns if its not being allowed. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
an over-the-top claim needs to be referenced or removed, it is not a ground for deletion. I have also noticed that the nom is deleting improvemnets made to the article during the discussion. I wonder what the nom's COI is? Esasus (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That right there is a massive violation of WP:AGF. I have no COI. I just want Wikipedia policies to be accurately enforced. I couldn't care less about this spammer who made his own article about himself as an individual. I'm opposed to abuse of this project as a whole. Too bad so many abusers showed up to support this scam artist. DreamGuy (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Been removed. Easy fix. No one else thought to do it? Are some so eager to toss this on the bonfire that they do not consider how easy it is to improve?? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the issue of repeated removal of external links and other information from the article -
User:Cameron Scott have repeatedly removed the Magazine Articles and External links from the article while the discussion is going on. This is very bad form and should stop. How can the article be rescued if good faith attempts at improving the article are repeatedly sabatoged? Does the closing editor have a comment on the pratice of negative edits during a discussion? Esasus (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not bad form to remove items from an article under AfD. Improving an article includes removing items which do not belong. As Cameron Scott and myself explained in the edit summaries (and on your talk page), the removal of these items was necessary, as 3 of the magazine articles were not legitimate sources and half the links were repeats. I removed the 3 magazines and explained why, above and in the edit summaries. There's nothing disruptive about this. Improving an article is sometimes about removing things. freshacconci talktalk 00:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
�DreamGuy (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are twice as many comments headed "delete" as headed "keep". It seems to me that all of the arguments given by those who favour keeping depend on failure to grasp that none of the sources offered to establish notability are independent sources. The following passage from Wikipedia:NOTE was quoted above, but I will quote it again for convenience of reference: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. All of the sources cited fail by this criterion, being either quotes from the artist's publicity, material from people paid by the artist to promote or sell his work, or in other ways derived from him. Further, Wikipedia:SELFPUB says: As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is. Companies which promote an artist's work as a commercial deal, and publicity magazines which reproduce press-releases verbatim usually do no scrutinizing of evidence and arguments at all. Finally, Wikipedia:SELFPUB also goes on to say: Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons (my emphasis). If I give you what I want published, and you publish it, how much different is that from self-publishing? Not very. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tim_Cotterill&oldid=1136107430"