Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barney Kulok

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. Dennis 2¢ 23:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barney Kulok[edit]

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

Blatant self-promotion. There is borderline evidence of notability, which was enough for it to escape a speedy deletion. But this is clearly a puff piece written by the subject of the article and two other IP accounts that are clearly sockpuppets. Dmol (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not self-promotion, sources are clearly stated and linked, articles exist in mainstream sources including the NYTimes, the Wall Street Journal, and other major periodicals. All evidence is that the subject is notable and deserves an entry. (This comment added to wrong section by IP user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2604:2000:1201:E0A1:C437:97BD:7524:D00F . I moved it down the page where it should have been. DMOL)

Comment. Of course it is self-promotion. The article was started by the you, the subject, and is only being edited by anonymous IP accounts who are only dealing with this subject.--Dmol (talk) 04:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously promotional article for a subject that fails WP:GNG. Likely WP:COI by author and anonymous editors. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it were kept, this article would need to be pruned drastically, with puffery/unsubstantiated claims removed. However, that may be moot, as notability has not be demonstrated. Ignoring brief mention in the WSJ and NYT, as well as a blog, the best reference is to Artforum; that's about it. It's possible one could find enough significant coverage, but given the quality of the article, I'm not willing to spend more than the 15 minutes it took to do some basic searches, and read the specified citations. Lacking additional proof, this is a delete. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep assuming there's an exact documentation for any of his work "in the permanent collections of the Museum of Modern Art, NY" . That's the basic criterion for creative artists. Frankly, I don;t see this article as more promotional that those for other contemporary artists, all of which list every conceivable exhibition and contain personal reflections on the nature of their creativity. This at least as some of those comments sourced to something better than a exhibition program, which is much better than average DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good catch -- but isn't the criterion for WP:ARTIST "...is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums"? I see the mention for MoMA; the two other places mentioned are: the Cleveland Clinic (which is a medical center -- does it also have a notable gallery or museum not mentioned in Wikipedia?); Frances Lehman Loeb Art Center (the blue link is missing in the Kulok article, but I see there's an article for it). Am I on the right track so far? If so, in your opinion, do these two collections suffice? I usually think of several as at least three, maybe more, but I realize the notability wording is just a guideline. If so, and assuming proof is provided, I'd change my vote. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 05:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the importance of the museum. The basis is two, not three, to the best of my knowledge everywhere in WP where "several" is mentioned But in this case, the one museum is so very important that I think it's enough, especially with a good college museum added. As examples, we're reluctant to accept two minor college or town museums, especially in the same area --or for that matter, 3 or 4. But a mueum like mOMA is a different level of notability altogether. DGG ( talk ) 17:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I believe this link [1] is evidence that MoMA owns works by Kulok. However, the Frances Lehman Loeb Art Center's web site says "The Collections Database is currently unavailable because of technical difficulties. We're very sorry for the inconvenience." If I'm online, I'll try again tomorrow. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC) [site still down --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2014 (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.