Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Litten

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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Litten[edit]

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

There is no evidence that this subject comes anywhere near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (The article was written by a user called Andrewlitten, evidently with a conflict of interest, and early version of it contained a good deal of promotional content, but it has since been substantially cleaned up, and I am not putting promotion forward as a reason for deletion. Deletion was proposed per PROD, and supported by another editor, but the PROD was removed by Andrewlitten, without giving any reason.) Searches for information about Andrew Litten have produced his own website, websites of galleries and businesses exhibiting or selling his work, promotional sites (e.g. ArtLyst, which describes itself as "a web project created by Artists to help Artists, Designers, Galleries, Collectors and Art Professionals to connect and promote new ideas..."), Wikipedia, Twitter, FaceBook, Vimeo, etc etc, but I found nothing that could be regarded as coverage in independent relaible sources. The references in the article are as follows: * A page about him on the web page of another gallery that exhibits his work. Not an independent source. * An exhibition review in The Ne York Times, which includes a single one-sentence mention of Andrew Litten. Not substantial coverage, by any stretch. * A web page of a gallery that exhibits his work, which merely includes his name in a list, together with 68 names of other artists. Neither substantial coverage nor an independent source. * A piece which begins with the sentence "THE MILLENNIUM Gallery in St Ives is pleased to present ID Smear, a solo exhibition of new work by Andrew Litten, pictured, until February 28." It has all the appearance of being publicity, probably a press release, and it is published on a web site dedicated to information about a particular county, and the web site says of itself "We have a portfolio of market leading print and digital brands." In is purely local publication of what appears to be essentially an advertisement. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is pure WP:PROMO, with insufficient WP:RS to meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. A couple of the sources have the veneer of appearing to be genuine, but once you look at them closely, you see that they are based on material generated by the subject himself, and therefore are in fact no better than WP:SPS. Qworty (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ARTIST. 99.12.243.171 (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, no substantial independent coverage ---- _nonsense ferret 21:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editors,

Please do not delete the page so soon. I am sorry for a lack of attention at times as I am combining this project with my A'levels so can always devote myself to it. I do not want all this effort to go to waste. I am bias, as Andrew is my Father but I want this to work out successfully. He has been involved in major exhibitions as an Independent artist with no PR or agent or dealer and this is incredibly rare and it is an interesting story for people. This is why a lot of the references are very difficult to cite - his career has not been managed in the way other artists have and many of the early galleries have now closed. I hope it will meet your requirements as soon as possible. I was not familiar with editing Wikipedia and admit to an embarrassing beginning. Sorry. I did not even realise until yesterday that there was a TALK PAGE so did not offer reason for my mistakes in the past. Apologies for not reasoning with the removal of the PROD BOX. It was my mistake.

Please do not delete this page. I am working so hard to make it substantial. It does need other contributions and this will happen but not in one week. The page has not even made it too a high google listing yet so others will not be aware of it.

The newspaper article that you refer to that contained only one line about Andrew, was in the New York Times. They only review significant exhibitions. The exhibition included Renoir and Epstein and was major, but the names Renoir and Epstein were deleted by an editor. Also, you have not allowed a listing of an exhibition at Tate Modern that Andrew was included in. You dismissed it because the exhibition filled the entire Turbine Hall and therefore had lots of artists were included. This seems strange. It was Tate Modern and I do not see how one editor can deem the exhibition not worth citing even though all the references were listed. It was a significant event and a festival of Independent artists. Andrew is an Independent artist who has achieved a lot and people will be interested in this. He exhibited at the Venice Biennale which is the biggest art event in the world. Thankfully you have allowed this. He exhibited an Anti Art painting made with paint and pubic hair during Frieze art Fair Week. It was seen by hundreds of people in Vyner Street's First Tuirsday but you will not allow it to be listed even though it is a major part of his 'independent artist' identity and would interest people.

I totally agree that other editors need to contribute to this Wikipedia page. Please do not delete this so soon before it has a chance to happen. The information is correct, referenced and will be of interest to people who are not entirely aware of his presence. It is important that the individual voice can be heard in a big world.

There is nothing corrupt going on with this wikipedia page. Would you please view Andrews contemporaries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzo_Marra and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Waller and please tell me what is significant about their status or exhibitions.

I will do everything I can to improve this page and prompt independent editing. The exhibitions listed are significant and there are many more to be cited but this should {I imagine)be done by other editors.

Isobel Litten109.157.24.144 (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isobel, there isn't an editor here who doesn't understand that you mean well. But your involvement is so deeply steeped in conflict of interest that you either can't or won't see how this doesn't meet Wikipedia notability guidelines, nor understand what constitutes a reliable source or a notable exhibition. You're communicating with editors who are familiar with both the guidelines and the means of finding sources that would support notability. The discussion will be open for a week, at which time an administrator will close it and make the determination to keep or delete. That finding will be based on the quality of evidence put forward here, not on a count of votes. Best, 99.12.243.171 (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember to sign in, so that there is no confusion about you participating in this discussion or editing the article while using two separate accounts. 99.12.243.171 (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are times in life when all you can do is quote from Barry Lyndon: "In my profession we hear many such stories. Yours is the most intriguing and touching I've heard in weeks. Nevertheless, I cannot grant your request. But, I'll tell you what I will do. I'll allow you to keep those fine boots, which normally I would have for myself." Qworty (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Isobel, you raise a number of points, and it would take a long time to answer every one in detail, but I will try to give some sort of answer to some of what seem to me to be the major points.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information about anything. About seven years ago there was a substantial debate on the question of what kind of evidence of notability should be required for a topic to qualify asthe subject of a Wikipedia article. The outcome of the debate is contained in the general notability guideline, which is also accompanied by various other guidelines, the most relevant in this case being Wikipedia:Notability (people). I suggest that you look at those guidelines, if you haven't already, but the main criterion is that a subject is considered notable if it has been the subject of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Unfortunately, if a subject has not done that, then it is unlikely to be considered notable enough to be the topic of a Wikipedia article. While I fully understand your point about why your father has not received such coverage, why he hasn't is not directly relevant: if he hasn't then he hasn't.
Notability is not inherited by having associated with other notable people, worked or exhibited with notable people, or been included in a notable exhibition: we need evidence that he is notable in his own right.
You don't need to apologise for not giving a reason for removing the PROD. I mentioned it merely as a way of saying that I could not comment on the reason, because I didn't know what the reason was, not to criticise you.
As far as I know, nobody thinks there is anything "corrupt" going on. I do not have the slightest doubt that everything you have done has been done in good faith, but that, like most people who are new to editing Wikipedia, you have done so without being aware of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Almost all of us make mistakes when we start editing: I certainly did. I was lucky, in that my first edits were just minor changes to existing articles, so when I had things reverted I didn't lose a lot of work, but I have every sympathy with editors who, like you, dive straight into writing substantial new articles, only to see them disappear.
As for your remarks about Enzo Marra and Daryl Waller, it is natural for anyone new to editing Wikipedia to look at existing articles for evidence as to what is acceptable. However, unfortunately, it is not a reliable guide, a new editor very often has the bad luck to choose articles which are not suitable, and which would have been deleted if they had been noticed. Among the four million and more articles on English language Wikipedia, there are many unsuitable ones that simply haven't been noticed and deleted. Daryl Waller is certainly one of those, and it has now got its own deletion nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daryl Waller. It is not obvious to me at a quick glance whether Enzo Marra satisfies Wikipedia's guidelines or not, but it may be that that one too should go.

I hope that my remarks have helped to clarify things for you. However, as far as saving the article is concerned, I'm afraid your father really does not seem to satisfy our notability standards. If the problem were that the article was badly written, then it could be solved by rewriting it, but no amount of rewriting an article will change the notability of the subject of the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop press: I have now checked the article Enzo Marra, and have confirmed that it fails Wikipedia's notability standards by a long way, as can be ssen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enzo Marra. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, basically nonsense ferret Widefox; talk 08:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - created in good faith but clearly fails WP:ARTIST, WP:BIO and WP:GNG.Theroadislong (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The article says nothing but that he has taken part in several exhibuitions and that one museum bought one of his paintings. He could be notable, but sofar the article does not establish that. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ARTIST and GNG Tiggerjay (talk) 04:56, 5 February 2013 (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.