Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philipp Graffham

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: deleted per author's request (db-g7). – Athaenara ✉ 19:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philipp Graffham[edit]

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

References do not establish notability. Article makes no claims of notability. Beach drifter (talk) 06:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and I just wanted to add an article on Keith A. Buchholz as well, he is not mentioned here, hard for me to understand, that there is no article on him at wikipedia, he is one of the most important artist in fluxus at the moment. Possibly at the moment better for me, someone else focusses on him. Shall I better do not write articles on artists I worked with during any discussions ? Here is also no article on The New Blockaders, and to me, The New Blockaders were THE band in industrial music beside Throbbing Gristle and Nurse With Wound, Whitehouse and Organum, possibly someone else will focus on them. Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 07:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The articles at LATimes and Journal mention him as artist, main information on him is at blogs, no good references, I will see if his donation of a work for permanent exhibition at Disneyland Park is better documented somewhere, mostly information I found about this donation might be originally taken from his website, I will see. I am in contact with Philipp, so can ask him for better and more references, that I can add.

So what about articles on The New Blockaders and Keith A. Buchholz, possibly another User will write some lines, ..., I will better do not during discussion, and better not lateron, for it will be always a conflict due to the fact that I like their work. But I am supposed that articles here were always written by Users, who like the subject and therefor write about this person. Cecil Touchon is mentioned with that lot of info, he is not more notable in fluxus or neo fluxus as Keith A. Buchholz is, and he has no article. Anyway, I just work as artist with Cecil Touchon as well, he saw my film DAS Backeen at Chicago Fluxfest the two curated, and now we start to work via mail at BROTKATZE Collaborations.

Concerning Philipp I have to say, that I will see, if there are better references. I will let you know in this discussion. Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 07:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a considered a WP:COI if you are merely a fan of his work. If it were then a lot of articles on people (and other things one can be a fan of) would have constant COI violations. However, if you are closely related and it would be difficult to be neutral, it is a COI. For a page on yourself, this is very obvious (or for, say the creator of the LdL method). But on other artists it is more difficult to say. But this deletion discussion is not the place for discussing possible COI on these other artists. -- Nczempin (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a word was missing: but I am SUPPOSED that ..., just added it, ... Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 07:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, KHJ, are you still up for having this page speedy-deleted? -- Nczempin (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Today I learned a lot about the rules for notability! I now think, en.wikipedia was the wrong platform for this article. I wanted to do Graffham a favour with the article, not having realized, that en.wiki is for worldwide active artists/musicians/people. He is based at Ponoma, working at Ponoma. He does a lot of great work there, I am sure, but mainly at this area. This is for sure the reason, that I did not find reasonable references, he is mentioned several times at LA Times as artist, but this is only one newspaper, read at local area.

I had more artists in mind to appear here with articles. But this might be a fault, I see by now. Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

since you're the only author of the page, it can be speedily-deleted using "G7" (IIRC). I think that is actually an advantage, because as far as I know no discussion details would have to be retained, which means that if anyone decided at some later date to create the article, it would not have a "headwind" due to the previous deletion discussion. Since it is easier for me to just take the necessary steps than to teach you, I will ask for speedy deletion myself. -- Nczempin (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way for you to ask for speedy deletion would be to simply edit the page so it is blank. Then I wouldn't have to explain why I am doing this and not you. -- Nczempin (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2011 (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.