Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Miremont

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Miremont[edit]

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

After spending some time pruning away puffery and unsubstantiated claims about this article subject, I don't believe we're left with enough non-primary reliable sources establishing notability for this visual artist, at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The recent deletion of several aspects of the article while leaving comments like "bullshit", "logrolling" along with the peacock tag had me thinking Shawn in Montreal's deletions were questionable. I've since looked at Shawn's page and see that he is a serious editor. My mistake. My presumptions were why I removed his peacock tag, which led to his creating this page deleting discussion. (I did not mean to step on your toes Shawn, but I hope you can understand how leaving comments like "bullshit" could led others to question your deletions). Anyways, I find the subject's work with other notables and the references from known institutions, galleries and publications to show the page's merit (and perhaps even the return of some of the prior substantiated content that was deleted). That's just my view. Nynewart (talk) 11:06 EST, 20 March 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 15:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Nynewart (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. . Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you seem to be making an insinuation of WP:POINT here, which I strongly object to. I did not bring this to Afd because you removed the peacock tag, I did do because when started to look at the references, didn't seem to be any substance to these claims of notability, some of which were absurd (I remind you that you had him as a notable American philosopher). Can you link to any WP:RS, deleted or otherwise, that establish these claims? And keep in mind that a WP:PRIMARY ref from a gallery showing his work, or a non-independent YouTube link, or a porn industry news site (in this case: see later), or Mamie van Doren's quote about how great he is, having been included in his picture book (logrolling) -- none of those are reliable independent sources for these claims. The porn industry news site is a reliable for the adult industry, but not the way it was being used by you here. As for the Revolutionart link, I'd like to know what's there but it's a massive zip file, which I do not intend to download. Is there any way you can link to Revolutionart via a standard weblink? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you are saying, Shawn in Montreal. That's why I said, "I did not mean to step on your toes". Like I mentioned above, I made my assumptions, based on your uses of words like "bullshit" in your deletion notes. This was before I research and saw you were a serious editor. I hope you can understand this. I never undid any of your deletions on the subject's page. On this deletion page here, which you created, I merely articulated the timeline of your actions and mine. I thought I apologized above. If not, please accept mine, to you, now. It is sincere.

About the philosophy notability, you are absolutely correct. I created this page back after the subject lectured in my graduate class on Aesthetics at NYU. It was my assumption that he was notable in that field (philosophy) based on his being a guest lecturer and the work on his site. That was my mistake and you are correct. I will research for WP:RS when I have time. I did not debate this anywhere nor undo any of your deletions.

To address the logic behind my questioning the "logrolling", well, that was tied up in your use of above mentioned language like "bullshit", and also becasue you mentioned that the subject had a "book" or "picture book" used as compensation. I am not sure if he has published a book with Mamie van Doren in it. If he has, then you could be absolutely right and you know more about him than I do. A book was not mentioned in the article, nor on her cited page, though. For my part, I was merely adding content to the "photography section" I created and thought that a direct, sourced comment about his work, made by a historically notable model, was relevant. I didn't see any place, or book, where he has mentioned her in compensation. Can you please cite it in the "references section" if you have, becasue that would be useful as a [[WP:RS] for further development of the subject's page. Nynewart (talk) 12:59 EST, 20 March 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 16:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you're unaware that you added the content on the book and the praise from van Doren. I don't have to add anything to show that "he mentioned her in compensation" -- she was in the book. I have no objection to you adding content on the book, and van Doren is a notable figure who merits mention. But the way it was added, giving the impression that her high praise for the article subject is independent, and failing to mention the connection between the two, is part of a pattern throughout the article, of using unreliable, non-independent and often primary sources to create an impression of notability, one that I maintain is not objectively supported. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn, the link you posted above shows where I divided the film section from the photography section for clarity. I felt this was necessary to properly expand this page and divides genres of work. I don't see a reference to a "book" by me anywhere. If there is, it should be removed or you should add the book in the references.

You also posted on the page for this subject's film, The Resurrection of Beauty, (which you also want to delete), that that film is an "adaptation of photo book by Miremont".

We can't find this "book" you keep referring to. Perhaps you are mean the title of a photography exhibit or an essay Miremont wrote on Aesthetics ? Either way, there is no connection to Mamie Van Doren and a "book" or "film". I have seen the film, which you say is based on a photo book, and Mamie van Doren is not in the film,(see its credits) nor is she mentioned in the essay or was there a photo of her in that exhibit (from what I can see from the documentary video of it). Mamie van Doren has got to be in her 80's by now and was active in the 50s and 60s. Her comment about the subject's work seems to be based on a genuine appreciation for it and I don;t see his commenting on or promoting her anywhere. The fact that she is a historically noted model makes this of interest anyone interested in Miremont's genre of photography. This is why I included it when I separated the film and photography sections as they should be.

Again, all of this is said while also saying that I don't mind you deleting the Van Doren quote if, unlike myself, you don't find it to be informative or substantiated. We can disagree. I only ask that you base that on a real reason and not on some misreading of things where you think a "photo book" exists that she is not in, and from which a film was not based. Nynewart (talk) 4:28 EST, 20 March 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 20:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again and again, your comments here leave me with the impression that you don't actually understand the basis for key guidelines like WP:N or WP:RS. I'm not going to waste my time debating these points with you. The fact remains, unless you or someone can produce multiple reliable sources independent of the subject establishing notability, then this article is very likely going to be deleted. Period. So expend your efforts in that area, if you wish. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree with most of what Shawn in Montreal has written here. While routine gallery publicity about exhibitions of the artist's work don't generally help to show notability, evidence that the artist has been exhibited or collected by notable museums (or maybe by very important galleries) does provide evidence of meeting WP:CREATIVE. But I haven't found any concrete evidence of that here. The article mentions a 60-foot graffiti at MOCA in Los Angeles but if I understand correctly this was an unauthorized piece of tagging rather than a part of an exhibit there, and I haven't found any mention of this work at moca.org or in any source independent of Miremont. If there's any real evidence of his work being collected by important institutions, or of the "significant critical attention" also mentioned in WP:CREATIVE, now is the time to produce it. Miremont's video of Soundgarden's "Flower" was made in 1988, and for someone who has been around that long, and whose work includes such potentially popular subject matter as rock videos and topless pinup girls, I would have expected to find more coverage than we are finding. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE. Arxiloxos made a great suggestion on another page in question about doing a merge and I agree that makes the most sense. Any content like the graffiti and some of the prior, now deleted content, were taken verbatim from interviews in the related references. I did not editorialize/poof that content. I took it verbatim from the interview or article. When looking to establish an "early life" section, it seemed like quotes from the subject's own mouth in an interview would be acceptable as even in a book it usually comes from a 1st person source like that via a writer's interview. But I get it :) This was one of my first, if not the first page, I made and a notability phase came up then, which it passed. I will endeavor to combine the two pages in question next week. Looking online just now, I see there are a few things in Billboard about his directing I can add as well. As I get time, I will look deeper into publications that haven't been archived online yet. --Nynewart (talk) (UTC)
A misrepresentation. What he actually said was "delete or merge," depending upon whether the target article gets deleted. If it is decided at Afd to delete both articles, you will have nothing to merge to. I don't know what you mean when you say the article passed it's "notability phase," in fact, I'm not completely satisfied you have been entirely forthcoming about your association with Miremont, but that is not the issue here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, an anon IP came along in back in 2008 removed the notability tag and some content with what appeared to have possibly been WP:RS. There's no way to tell what was there - the links are broken. But you may visit the page as it existed then and see for yourself. I've seen nothing that sways me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no one's tried to do any swaying becasue no new editing has been done yet. I will for sure research the dead link though. I think there are a couple dead ones on there in fact. Whatever does not belong will be deleted for sure. Until then, I would greatly appreciate it if we can slow down on the language, the baiting and the insinuations. Civil would be nice. Let's work on improving the page. I won't be able to get to it till next week, if then. Nynewart (talk) EST 9:23PM — Preceding undated comment added 01:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: This is the other, related film page that Shawn nominated for deletion we are discussing above. The Resurrection of Beauty. If anyone else has solid info on this film they can add, or are savvy with merging articles, please have at it. I know there were screenings in NY and Amsterdam, I don't know of others. Keep in mind there is some "artistic topless imagery" in this film, so don't research it, if that offends you or you are under 17. If it is merged, I think it can be brought down to a line or small paragraph. Nynewart (talk) EST 9:41PM — Preceding undated comment added 01:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you remove the Afd tag while the discussion is underway to effect a merge, I'll revert it and issue you a vandalism warning. Fair notice. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn, I'm not going to take the bait of you insinuating my guilt of "Precrime". I will just ask again that you assume good faith, as I have with with you. Let's focus just on the page. To that end, I've done an edit detailed below:

(1) has everything on the page is now directly referenced from these reliable, published sources: Sundance Institute, Rolling Stone Magazine, Billboard Magazine, Revolutionart, Filmmaker (magazine), MTV.com, The Hollywood Reporter, Variety (magazine), and the art gallery's site (for the solo photo exhibit in Amsterdam), and the exhibitor's announcement (for the film screening in Amsterdam). Both of these are notable institutions, established for several years.

(2) A dead link from Lucretia Magazine, which has folded since it was published in 2010, has been taken out of the references.

(3) The "Y-Not Europe" article about the photo exhibit and film screening that Shawn objected to being a reference has been taken out of the citations.

(4) The "contents box" and "partial filmography". The filmography was incomplete anyway as I believe he's directed over a dozen music videos that weren't on there anyways. I don't have time at the moment to research and site all of that, so I deleted it rather than leave in incomplete.

(5) Other possible sources of information have been put into an "Additional Information" section at the botom of the article. This section also has the subject's website, sites like IMDB, additional Magazine articles & reference media. None of these materials are referenced in the article, but they may be useful to other editors in future work on the page. (eg: finding announcements of new work on the subject's site)

For other editors: there are additional reliable, published sources in: Variety, Hollywood Reporter and Rolling stone that can be developed if you have time and access to their archives.

In conclusion, I contend that this page now adheres strictly to wiki standards. If you disagree, please be specific and make sure you aren't asking more of this page than you do the pages we can see you contributing to yourself. Nynewart (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do see a claim that there was a "full page article on Miremont" in Filmmaker, also described as "production update column." However, there seems to be no way of accessing "winter issue, 1996" to confirm what in fact it is (?). A "production note" in Billboard Magazine could also be trivial coverage. Also, I ask again if there is anyway you can link to Revolutionart as anything other than a zip file. I have no intention of downloading this, as this is my sole computer and I don't know what the file contains. (WP:LINKSTOAVOID #3). Is there any way you can copy paste salient contents of Revolutionart onto, say, the talk page of this Afd? Also, do you stand by your claim that there are "additional reliable, published sources in... Variety"? Because I just did a search on their site and there is absolutely nothing, "zero results", the site reports, for anyone named Mike Miremont. As of now, per WP:V, I see no verifiable evidence whatsover that would make me consider withdrawing this Afd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- With the article creator's additional info on the AfD talk page, I felt ok with downloading the 35 meg file. It's a PDF of Revolutionart, and I would accept the article-interview as one reliable source. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being specific, Shawn. I will address all of your concerns in the order you gave them:

(1) Filmmaker Magazine back issues are available at most large libraries. Not all magazines or industry journals have their "pre-information age" archives fully online. This was a 1996 article and I see most filmmaker magazine refs on wiki being formatted like THIS 2008 reference which is 12 years newer than the one I made (I found it when searched Glucksman's name - she wrote both articles). I have been a subscriber of this mag since '94 and can tell you first hand that it is mostly about The White Ocean. It is too long for me to type out and I dont have a scanner at the moment, But I dont bring up the production of that fiolm in the article myself anyways.

I only used the filmmaker magazine ref to support (a) Miremont's education info to that point and (b) the Soundgarden video. Both the education and soundgarden claims are supported in other refs (eg: the soundgarden link in "addition information" section). Given that these uncontroversial claims are supported by Revolutionart and other sources, the filmmaker mag citation is there just as a back up and to help other editors who may want to add content at some point about the white ocean film.

(2) The "production note" in Billboard Magazine is used merely to support the assertion that "Miremont has directed numerous music videos". I posted 3 such refs to support that, but could have posted many more. He has directed numerous music videos. Posting more in line refs would make the article unreadable and is prohibited by wiki. Further, there are many links supporting the simple claim that he "has directed several videos" in the "additional material" section. The ref you are singling out can be found online [Here] with a simple google search. Yes, it is a small notice, but the claim is merely that he has directed music videos and this one happens to be for Lazlo Bane. BTW, this video was for SONY Music and according to the band's website, the clip was one of the top 10 videos on mtv2 in 1997. I personally dont think it is that good. But bottom line, it is an uncontroversial claim that he has "directed numerous music videos" and that is one of 3 ref supporting that; and here are many more in the addition info section.

(3) As you know, I have cut and pasted the revolutionart article text on the TALK page here as requested. That site has been providing tens of thousands of monthly downloads since 2006 without malware (to my knowledge). It is a well respected international, Alternative Art Journal. You will see that much of the original content you deleted from the page without checking assuming the good faith of the reference came directly from this article. It was not original research of fluff added by me, as I think you believed. Anyway, I am glad we are on the same page. BTW, there is a small feature on Canadian filmmaker Floria Sigismondi in one of the issues. Regarding the Revoutionart ref, is there anything there you would add back into this article now?

(4) I do stand by the assertion about the hollywood reporter and variety being able to provide more content; especially in their early 90s archives about the White Ocean project. Even though these journals don't cover experimental filmmakers, they DO cover all sundance lab projects as there are only 6-9 directing fellows chosen per year. I just wanted other editors to know that there is more content out there if they want to find it. Not everything useable is online. Some is in books or older journals. The sundance institute's site was enough for the simple claims I made and they are supported by the other references throughout as well.

Well I think I addressed all your concerns.

Are we in consensus now?

Can some of the info from the Revolutionart ref put back in? (If so, would you consider doing it to avoid debate?)

SIDE NOTE Shawn, your comments got me interested, so I looked at your contribution history again. I saw the edits you did yesterday at the Canadian animator, Cordell Barker's page. I noticed you've been the single biggest editor of his page for the last 7 years. He's a filmmaker whose films I really enjoy. I found some things I wanted to bring to your attention but didn't know how to do so while we were butting heads on this page. And I didn't want to do the fixes myself because that could easily be misinterpreted. So let me just pass on these notes in good faith, since I know you are into that page. (1) I remember seeing a dead link, (2) the majority of the refs come from NFB webpages. They are his employer, so this may give the raise to impartiality claims. I know there have got to be other refs out there. Most easy to fix is that you use IMDB as the only ref to support that he has won 2 short film animation oscars. Beyond us not being able to use IMDB on wiki, its further a problem when you follow the link to IMDB and there is mention of the oscars to be found. Here is my olive branch... you can easily fix that using the variety article which mentions the oscars and is a reliable source. Again, I would have fixed this for you, but I don't want to appear to step on your toes.

Maybe you can return the favor by telling me what can be used from the Revolutionart article without controversy. Best, Nynewart (talk) 02:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Feel free to improve any article I've worked on, however you like. As for Revolutionart, I'll gladly restore anything from that article that I've cut, if this is kept. Keep in mind: that's WP:ONESOURCE, so far. And mere production listings are not significant coverage, of the kind we require. So, imo, they're sufficient to WP:V his credits, but they're not the kind of thing that will build a case for notability. For that, more feature pieces like the one in Revolutionart would. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you can restore the info without deleting new content (meaning not a simple revert) please do. If you don't want to do that, just let me know if anything in that article is controversial to you and I will avoid it. I think the other magazine articles/interviews listed in the "additional information" section can be used to make this more than one source if I can find them archived or you will accept them being republished on the author's website when the magazine folded.

And just so I understand, are you are saying all resources must be readable online? I did not know that as I see all over the site there being book/mag references you cant read online. Is it a matter of the page #? I can certainly add that. If not can you just direct me to the wiki page detailing this so I can do it right the 1st time?

I will fix the IMDB issue for you and leave the rest to other editors. Nynewart (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I'm not into improving this article as it stands now, as I'm still not persuaded that he's currently notable, and the article, retained. But certainly, I'm satisfied that neutrally worded statements about him and his work can be (re)added from the Revolutionart feature interview, if you wish. And no: references do not have to be online. It's just the only way that I'd personally be satisfied that these claimed references actually are significant -- not mere production listings (see WP:ITEXISTS. Now, other editors well may accept your claims for these references and decide the article should be kept. We work on WP:CONSENSUS: you'll have to see what others say. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

& the article / & the article /

Delete Neither he nor the principle work in any of its manifestations seems to have sufficient sources for notability. Not concerned with the question of who did what, just evaluating the sources and the article. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 27 March 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.