Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Thorsen

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 to delete, with a distinct lean towards keeping as improved. bd2412 T 01:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Thorsen[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No WP:RS to establish WP:ARTIST. Created by a SPA in 2009, with a potential COI given they uploaded the high quality image; been flagged since 2010. None of the Awards are verifiable, such that we could establish whether they are significant. The best I could get in a database search was "Haynes, Meghan. "Artist-designed doors merge form, function. (The Details)." Professional Builder [1993], Jan. 2003, p. SS10" which is essentially only a 125 advertisement for a companies services ("To learn more about Artisans Doors of Montana, visit www.artisandoors.com or call 406/756-9737.") Theredproject (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Despite having achieved "Eagle Scout rank" (really, see article), not notable based on published sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Weak Keep based on recent refbombing of sources. The sources here are very fringe, but the quantity pushes it over the top. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm updating the article's newspaper & magazine references — Preceding unsigned comment added by Froissart1989 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eric Thorsen is a highly respected figure in the art world. I can testify that many of his awards are verifiable and I will be making some edits to this article to legitimize its worthiness to remain here on Wikipedia. For instance, based on his appearances at the C. M. Russell Show alone he becomes a notable figure in art, and Western art in particular. This is a juried show where wanna be artists and hacks have zero chance of showing their artwork. To delete this article would be preposterous, indeed. I think it should be removed from the "articles considered for deletion" list immediately. ♥Golf (talk)

Unfortunately the "CM Russel" museum show does not make for instant notability. It's a cowboy art museum in Montana, not the Guggenheim in New York or the Louvre in Paris. Some of the recently added references (e.g. a ref for "The World Taxidermy and Fish Carving Championships") really say it all. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The C. M. Russell Show is the premiere western art show in the United States, period, full stop. ♥Golf (talk)

The above person is clearly an art snob. In his community, Eric regularly volunteers his time. He helps students learn to use 3D printers and apply CADD tools to design, he also aids in a plethora of other STEAM activities. The community is blessed with his time and consistent dedication to student learning. Eric is a brilliant artist, and this cannot be contested. Having travelled the world, spending a university year of Thursdays in le musée du Louvre à Paris, I have seen my fair share of art. From the Art Institute of Chicago to the Cluny, I know enough about sculpture. Simply because the above commentator does not appreciate "cowboy" art, does not mean it has no value. It is part of our history, even if it isn't to everyone's taste. I am not at all a fan of one whole hallway of Italian paintings in the Louvre; does this make them worthless? Of course not. To imply that simply because one lives in Montana he has no talent, taste for art, or sense of what is good art is simply closed-minded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shannaburchwell (talk • contribs) 16:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC) — Shannaburchwell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That's all nice, but we judge the notability of subject based on the notability policy, not on whether someone is a nice person, has talent, a taste for art, or a sense of what is good art. Also, please restrain your personal attacks per WP:NPA. There's really no need, we are all volunteers. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article has been expanded to 42,000 bytes from 3,000 since the nomination. Folks need to make sure to look at its current state and not rely on the description in the nomination. It currently has over 60 references mostly from regional media now, vice nomination's "no RS". Note that it is a fallacy to insist on media from NYC and other metropolises. Not to mention that such a course would lock in systemic bias, harmful to truly encyclopedic content, and which ought to be actively countered. In any event, there is no longer a compelling policy basis for deletion. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the refbombing with new sources has brought it to a keep status with no policy reasons for deletion, even though the refs are mostly weak very local mentions in the most fringe-like papers you can find.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Weak rationales and support for keeping the article while deletion is not endorsed too.

Consensus needs to be established.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 20:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The quality of the article was poor and it's still at best mediocre, but the artist is notable at a regional level (His name rang a bell with me, anyway, not that I'm an RS, but...) and looks like additional sources added are adequate. I located the following interview, if it helps any. Montanabw^(talk) 23:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC) [1][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.