Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly D. Williams

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. Cbrown1023 21:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly D. Williams

Request deletion as not notable. Kelly D. Williams is an artist who produces skateboard related art. The only references are in External links to his own web site and a blog interview emailed from Kreativ Network [1] a non-notable association of artists. A search of the commercial EBSCO news and magazine database did not turn up any hits for Kelly D. Williams. A NEXIS search for Kelly D. Williams in art news did not turn up any articles. Nor did I find any reliable sources in a brief Google search, mostly his advertising and takes from this Wikipedia article. This article has been up since April 2006 and notability has not been provided. As the “Official website for Kelly D. Williams” is quite commercial, as well as is the Kreativ Network site, it is not entirely clear where this should be judged for notability as a business or as an artist. As a business it fails WP:CORP. As an artist: There are no book or magazine biographies or even news stories about Kelly D. Williams. Some magazines are listed in the Wikipedia article under "Exhibition & Media Summary", but, for example, Transworld Business Magazine was listed (until removed by an IP editor last week) and a search of their issues 2003 to date did not produce any articles. Similarly a search of the archives of Staf Magazine [2] (a Spanish language zine) did not reveal any interview with Kelly D. Williams, or any Williams, caveat the archive may not have contained the whole of 2006. Kelly D. Williams may have works in some galleries, but so far as I have been able to determine, he has won no awards and had had no one-man-shows. He has no works in museums. He is not notable as an artist. Maybe in twenty years he will be, but it is not there now. --Bejnar 08:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, we should also delete the Kelly d williams redirect page. --Bejnar 08:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article but suggest to delete the Kelly d williams redirect page. 11:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete I took a look at the 2006 media mentions listed in his CV. The Street Resource mention seems to be an interview published on the StreetRes blog in Dec 2005[3], republished from a Japanese zine. The interview introduces him as an "up and coming artist". Bejnar's already done most of the legwork, so I just ran the other names of media sources through Factiva - only Lemonade came with 2 very passing mention hits. Factiva search on Williams only brought up a few one line mentions in gallery schedule listings. Bwithh 16:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless properly and verifiable sourced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Removed irrelevant, libelous comment from Afd. Kelly D. Williams is clearly a significant artist in either the underground art world, the commercial design realm, or both. The 2K by Gingham affiliation is substantial, as well as this article I located here: http://www.gimmeshelter.co.uk/ArtistInfo.php?user_id=182 containing multiple testimonials from people who appear to be artists in street art. I will continue to do research and offer cleanups when found. Eng500 15:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep removed subjective phrases per AfD, found a verifiable source on this artist on the 2K By Gingham website. 2K By Gingham is a company that creates apparel featuring the work of legitimate artists. Kelly D. Williams name was found amongst the names of Barry McGee, Jean-Michel Basquiat, and Yoko Ono. An article (a pdf) was also found referencing his gallery appearances. I removed the blog link to the Street interview as it seemed to not have much notability. I'm somewhat new to Wiki, but I will try to offer help to clean up this article. 11:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep – assistance with edit When this article was first created it seemed to have some improvable or at least opinionated information, so I have made few attempts to remove such content and/or add additional resources as they were found. I’ve done this because I’m aware of the credibility of Kelly D. Williams as an actual artist, both as a gallery artist as well as a commercial graphic designer (not a business). As mentioned, there is, in fact, an article/interview with the artist in Staf Magazine – I know this because I have seen the actual issue as well as seen this artist’s artwork on listings for group and solo exhibitions in various art-related periodicals. Reasons for deletion are also highly opinionated, so I propose to remove opinionated content and keep. Eng500 18:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please if you can provide verified notability with reliable sources do so. The first requirement of notability for a living person is that the person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. Further, the person must have made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. They can't just be a credible artist. Contributing to the "enduring historical record" usually means that an artist has works in museums (more than one); however, it can also be met where an artist has started an artistic movement. These underlying facts of notability cannot be proved using the content of interviews or other self-promotional works. To show wide recognition, there must be third-party verification from non-trivial publication outside of publications by sponsors of the activity. I hope this helps you understand why the current article fails basic notability standards and what needs to be done to establish notability. --Bejnar 04:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Keep – assistance with edit Please refer to the same notability article defining requirements for credibility of a person, which reads “This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted.”

Other tests of notability:

Multiple features in popular culture publications, A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following, Name recognition, and Commercial endorsements.

From the research that ALL people have posted on this discussion, this article (or artist as a person) has satisfied several (or ALL) of these tests.

If, after all of this, you can still prove that this article is NOT noteworthy or serves as permitted and valuable information to Wiki users, feel free to mark me down as a “delete”, but this seems like it’s taking excessive argument to justify deleting the article, while several points of valid criteria have been plainly met.

Also note the length of time that this article has existed, the diverse contributions to it, and also consider other articles on Wiki for similar artists in this similar genre of art. Many of them have not been sufficiently written according to the points discussed in this Afd, and therefore serve as referential precedence as preserved articles of significance that should not be deleted. Eng500 05:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not the genre, it is not how long something has been up, (I believe that Wikipedia editoras should allow people time to prove up an article.) it is not the fandom, it is not what was done with other articles (the Pokemon argument), it is the standards. Wikipedia:Notability (people) is clear that if the first criteria is not met, then the others are irrelevant. --Bejnar 00:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Comment Thank you for once again providing the information in Wikipedia:Notability (people), which above all says this: "People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them." I cannot think of any other argument to clarify the import of this article other than what the Wiki requirements suggest. I think it's obvious that this may be an artist or an article of significance, but i don't have the endurance to do anything other than suggest we Keep and improve this article. --Eng500 01:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine for dead people. You left out the caveat "Biographies of living persons are subject to additional rules and restrictions. ..." Editors have had six months to prove up Kelly D. Williams, and what did we get: magazine dead ends, which some kind soul has removed, one interview, and bios from related parties (galleries). --Bejnar 01:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please improve this article if possible. If confirmable text or images are found, go ahead and contribute to this article. Satisfies Wikipedia:Notability requirements, but categorized as a stub. Sidenote: Is this the same Kelly D. Williams that is a endorsed snowboarder? I googled a bunch results of a pro or amateur athlete by the same name, mentioning position in arts(?)
~~Comment~~ - Keep Added references, discovered that Kelly D. Williams the artist is also a professional (or possibly amateur) snowboard athlete. Added photo & removed stub. Hope this helps!
Weak Delete None of the sources I checked (I couldn't get the last one to open) were both non-trivial and reliable (I.e. they were all either blogs or art show blurbs). If he as independent notability as a snowboarder (and [4] does say that he is one), I might be persuaded to keep, but right now there is no evidence that he has any thrid-party coverage for snowboarding. Eluchil404 09:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notability may lie in his future, but that's crystalballing... Robertissimo 19:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above... Addhoc 13:32, 21 January 2007 (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.