Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L.C. Von Sukmeister

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. Comments by obvious single-purpose accounts and sockpuppets were disregarded. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

L.C. Von Sukmeister[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}}.

This was speedy deleted before as a hoax. Everything about this article is suspect, not least of which, it's confirmed in the article that this is a pseudonym of a PhD candidate of questionable notability. If "R.S. de Boer" is notable himself, then an article should be created about him with perhaps some information about this character if sourced. But as it stands, this is unencyclopedic. freshacconci talktalk 23:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 23:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promotion by someone with no sign of notability. Edward321 (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A brave new reactionary media world is the canvas of choice for L.C. Von Sukmeister. As one who has been involved in television arts since the mid 1970's in California, I have found his work to speak on a note of realism, while also reinterpreting a captured moment. And that is the trick for all of us who dabble in the digital realm. Where do we draw the line of documenting or delineating our own interpretation of our present time. L.C. Sukmeister does exactly that. He balances on that fine edge and that in fact is an art form. It is an evolving art form not just in our present time--but in REAL TIME.

Ruben Avila, Visual Artist, Sceneologist and Documentarian of the arts and culture of the South Texas/Mexico Border Region Cited works may be seen at YouTube.com/VisualArtsNetwork — Preceding unsigned comment added by RubenAvilaMedia (talk • contribs) — RubenAvilaMedia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment I guess we can take that as a "keep"? freshacconci talktalk 03:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Relevant comment by ruben avila, one should indeed keep the page, because L.C. in my opinion, signifies new approaches in new media art.WheelieVD (talk) 08:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC) — WheelieVD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Possible conflict of interest and abuse of sockpuppets. This article was originally crated by user:Lcvonsukmeister, which user name is the same as the article title. It was recreated by user:Rsdeboer, which user name is again directly related to the subject of this article. Definitely both users are the same person, but not abuse so far. Suddenly at this afd discussion appears two new editors user:RubenAvilaMedia and user:WheelieVD – both having only on edit in the Wikipedia at this afd page and both arguing for keeping this article. Seem like abuse of the policies for me. Beagel (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 05:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: thank you very much for all the comments, it's now all been recorded and documented for a conceptual artwork that shows the steps of an artist who becomes accepted/or not into the world of internet and especially wikipedia. i often wondered what kind of knowledge about contemporary art these wiki users actually have. it seems that wiki isn't the democratic free place it assumes to be, since it's not recognizing evolving avant-garde movements. in a way i understand its policy to only accept articles which somewhere are created by people who already wrote articles about pencils or car windows, but i don't think most of these people -although they know a lot about the policies and rules that comes with wiki- are suitable to write on art because of their sheer ignorance of the developments of for example new art media. while working as a phd candidate, check my homepage of the VU University Amsterdam (The Netherlands), i also work as a para-performative artist-historian, that means alongside my writings on art i also work as an artist myself. thus, in this role as artist i try to find and break the boundaries between the highbrow and lowbrow arts and the different gatekeeping mechanisms and use subversive techniques to reveal how these mechanisms work. this artwork could be considered as institutional critique, not so much on the institution of the museum and the gallery (since this artwork had already appeared in the performance of writing on wiki and this documented residue isn't for sale), but rather on the institution of wiki as public space where people meet who have different degrees of understanding the arts (which is notable in some of the comments of people who actually don't have art degrees whatsoever but are only on wiki because they have knowledge on the policies and rules that come with it and for a part that's good but also is obstructive to the supposedly real democratization of this medium). a solution could be to start a special kind of wiki-inspired page only written by artists and art historians, but anyhow, i think this was a nice case of exploring gatekeeping mechanisms of an assumedly free public space. thank you all —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsdeboer (talk • contribs) 12:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's been done: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Art. freshacconci talktalk 16:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable and could be a hoax. Also, regarding above comment, User:Rsdeboer may be a sock puppet of User:Lcvonsukmeister. I take it that is a style of Art? Sorry but Wikipedia is not a Democracy as such, but it does have rules. Artypants, ^Babble 16:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: yeah sure, as the artist L.C. von Sukmeister i make up this webpage of a university to host the name of R.S. de Boer?? hahaha I AM R.S. de Boer and R.S. de Boer = L.C. von Sukmeister, they both exist. R.S. de Boer a little bit more and you can find me on the VU University, if you don't believe that... i don't know how you can think of me as a sock puppet.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsdeboer (talk • contribs)
Strong delete - self-advertisement by obvious C.O.I. sockpuppet/meatpuppet accounts seeking to make the subject notable via Wikipedia, either due to a complete misunderstanding of our ethos, or possibly a full understanding of our ethos and a defiant wish to violate it, a/k/a WP:POINT. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm leaning towards the latter. freshacconci talktalk 14:35, 3 March 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.