Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Ausgang

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Ausgang[edit]

Unsourced promotional article created by User:Ausganger. No indications of independent third-party coverage nor any other signs of notability (none of the "documentaries" mentioned appears to have been made by a notable filmmaker). Previous version of article deleted as copyvio; new version is highly derivative of the various autobiographies the subject posts around the web. A moderately funny article, but still not a notable subject. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than the obvious WP:COI violation, I have not found anything reliable about him after doing a few searches. From what I see, fails WP:N; if somebody links me to a reliable source mentioning him, I will be more than happy to reverse my !vote. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 22:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete various obvious issues. -Falcon8765 (talk) 23:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I changed per work below, particularly Juxtapoz Art & Culture Magazine, seems encyclopedic but still needs work...Modernist (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no refs, source etc. Artypants, ^Babble 18:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The original entry for Anthony Ausgang was removed and the replacement had no references. The current entry is up to Wikipedia standards. Thank you for the crit.Ausganger (talk) 08:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Ausganger[reply]
Delete. Huge COI, fails WP:BIO. Brian Reading (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is certainly not the case that there is no indication of notability. There is a bibliography in the article. I've checked out one entry, namely Juxtapoz Art & Culture Magazine (a major publication for Lowbrow art), a search of which returns 37 results for Ausgang, where he is listed amongst those after "well-known artists", and "including such infamous names as", and described individually as "renowned Low Brow artist". Ty 07:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Respond. User:Ausganger keeps rewriting the article, and added most of the material you mention after the AfD began. However, very few if any of the sources he references are genuinely independent of the aricle subject, and so aren't sufficient to establish notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would seem to be a good thing for the article, if more sources have been added and should be encouraged. I presume you're not saying Juxtapoz Art & Culture Magazine is not independent of the subject, and it is a major publication for the genre. I've put the bibliography from the article on the AFD talk page, to save excessive clutter here. I am not deeply knowlegeable on the matter, but an immediate appraisal of the works shown does not seem to show a lack of independence. If you're familiar with the material, it would be helpful if you could indicate under the entries which are not independent and why. Ty 01:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm referring specifically to the much smaller number of actual references cited in the article, which include the subject's own website, an exhibition catalog, and books of undetermined nature -- but not Juxtapoz. I've got no idea what's the content of the "bibliography" items, but the Juxtapoz search comes up almost exclusively with lists including his name, not the substantive coverage needed for notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Surely we have to take into account the bibliography also in assessing this, and can't act as if it doesn't exist. Also, if Juxtapoz refers to him among "well-known artists", "top notch folks", "such infamous names as", and as "renowned Low Brow artist", this is an assertion of notability within the field from an authoritative source on the subject. Juxtapoz results.[1] There are 32 results from Google Books,[2] including Morning Wood ("the work of 50 of the world's current top 'alternative creators'"),[3], La Artland,[4] Pop Surrealism, where his works are reproduced,[5], Weirdo deluxe: the wild world of pop surrealism & lowbrow art, ("23 leading artists")‎, where he is a featured artist,[6] as well as a monograph Vacation from Reality published by 9mm Books.[7] As no mention has been made of any of this in the AfD to date, let alone an assessment of it, I presume no one has actually so far done a search of Google Books, so the opinions expressed above seem to be a shot in the dark, rather than an informed evaluation. Ty 11:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Surely if Ausgang was genuinely notable, it would be possible to cite the "significant coverage," more than "trivial mentions," as required by the general notability guidelines. Not everybody mentioned in a book is notable enough for an individual Wikipedia article, after all, and the burden of establishing notability rests with those who claim a subject is notable. So far all we have is variations on the subject's autobiography and a "bibliography" where most of the items involve no more than the "trivial mentions" (in long lists of names) that don't establish notability. The article is still just a minimally sourced autobiography with no significant content that doesn't come from the article subject himself, and no substantive argument, no "informed evaluation," here or anywhere else, showing he meets the notability guideline -- just Google Search results, which standing alone aren't enough to do the job.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Respond How can a subject be referenced by a source and yet be independent of it? That is impossible. If Anthony Ausgang is the main topic of a print or online article, then that article is a legitimate reference for the Wikipedia entry. Just because one person haven't heard of something or someone doesn't mean that no one else has.(Ausganger (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Comment this should be re-written by someone other than the subject. I looked into the sources, they are all legitimate, however, it is all non-critical portfolio-style coverage. The volume of it, however, would show notability within this genre, I'd imagine. (It's critical importance, I personally believe, comes from the broader (sub)culture it's associated with - in and of itself, there's not much to say about it, but that doesn't mean it's not notable). If one were to use only secondary sources to write this article, it would be, at best, a stub with about two sentences. Deadchildstar (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The currently asserte facts are from unsuitable sources (seems some misunderstanding here about primary sources, etc) - it *might* be possible to construct an appropriate article, but I see nothing in this one that meets the prerequisites. Why was this listed, when it already had lots of delete votes? Chzz ► 15:51, 16 July 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.