Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Kirby

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. Spartaz Humbug! 08:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Kirby[edit]

Rick Kirby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Before isn't returning enough to suggest notability and the refs in the article are very weak. The article reads like the bio of a respected but routine sculptor. There is currently an AfD about a piece of his work at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture) Szzuk (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I advocate keeping this article with content merged from Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture), the refs are weak, but in my opinion just sufficient to pass notability requirements. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The content you merged back appears to be have had been completely rebutted in the other AfD so is of little value. In the event that article is deleted then those references should be discounted for the purpose of this Afd and this difference used [1]. Please do not leave uncivil comments on my talkpage. Szzuk (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ouch. That was supposed to be a nice quote to go with the one on your userpage ... But really my thoughts revolve around looking at the subject in context with what I must presume is his most notable creation. Ideally this AfD would have followed the other one, but I think it's likely that Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture) will be deleted, so we can work from there. While it's true that most the references were rebutted to varying degrees by Editør in the other AfD, it is not clear how they will fare in relation to the creator rather than the sculpture, or exactly what is in Cocke 2009, but it's for others to decide on this, I am not !voteing, just pointing out the merge concept I developed for the other AfD. Prince of Thieves (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is little information about the work or artist on the helmet page itself, a merge there would be better. Szzuk (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This proposal is inspired by Szzuk's vote to delete Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture) (see discussion), and seems more like an attempt to prove a point there, than a reflection of a belief that Kirby is not notable. Kirby's sculptures have been unveiled by the Queen, by Princess Margaret, by, Prince Edward, and by Seamus Heaney. More references can be come by if necessary, but I believe the threshold of notability is easily met. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The references are weak, what point am i proving? Szzuk (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Articles about artworks are rarely kept if their creator has no article, as above, ideally this AfD would have followed the other one, but as they are happening concurrently I would urge Usernameunique to find some references for this royal connection. The additional references are probably necessary. Prince of Thieves (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The salient point about notability is whether the references exist, not whether they are all used in the article. Otherwise, to take as example a page that Szzuk created, Alyn Waters would be in serious trouble. Prince of Thieves, here are some royal references: 1, 2, 3, 4. And some more references: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernameunique (talk • contribs) 23:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those. I will point out a few things, first I doubt Alyn Waters would survive AfD undeleted. Second, you can't assume people will know of sources they can't find, not everyone can pierce the ProQuest paywall. As I said before, I think the references are weak but just sufficient to show notability, and I am sticking with that for now. Prince of Thieves (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You added 16 unreliable sources to your new sutton hoo helmet sculpture page. On the 8th of January 2018 you added all but one of the references to this article and they too are unreliable sources. See WP:RS for what constitutes a reliable source. Szzuk (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the author of the page is a paid consultancy company - axle arts. The piece is little more than a paid for advert for the exhibition, hardly independent. Szzuk (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is about an exhibition at Bath Contemporary, which is connected to Axle Arts; but where do you get the idea that the author of the article is itself Axle Arts? --Usernameunique (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Her name isn't on the page you linked me to - but a link to axle arts is. The magazine clearly states they take editorial submissions. Szzuk (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her name is clearly there. (see below). The editorial submissions are clearly marked and this isn't one. Prince of Thieves (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
<span class="cb-hide" itemprop="author" itemscope itemtype="https://schema.org/Person"><meta itemprop="name" content="Jessica Hope"></span><meta itemprop="headline" content="His implacable gaze: Sculptor Rick Kirby at Bath Contemporary">
  • The meta data means she uploaded it to her website, her name isn't on the article and there is no copyright claim. It appears this is the best reference? And it is disputed. Szzuk (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This meta-data is specifically that attached to the author, not the uploader which is separate, and a different person. Copyright is asserted, to the Magazine and MC Publishing Limited (publisher of the magazine), which is consistent with an article written by a inhouse staff member. I am not in the best position to argue the other references, since a substantial number are paywalled and I can't access them. But I am happy to debate the ones I can access. Prince of Thieves (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Szzuk, to be fair, you are the only one who has disputed it, and most of what you have said about it is incorrect. First, you said the author is Axle Arts; this is demonstrably false. Second, you suggested that the article is an editorial submission; this is demonstrably false. Third, you suggested that the author uploaded the article "to her website," which trivializes Bath Magazine (e.g., we wouldn't call nytimes.com "Eric Lichtblau's website"). Also, saying "It appears this is the best reference?" ignores Prince of Thieves's statement that this example is "just picking one source at random". --Usernameunique (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in the article on this diff Table by Prince of Thieves (talk)
No link author RS Indi
1 [2] Gail ? no dubious
2 [3] PMSA yes yes
3 [4] Rick Kirby no no
4 [5] Bath Contemporary no no
5 [6] Axle Arts no no
6 [7] ArtParkS International Ltd dubious yes
7 [8] ipswich star yes yes
8 [9] ? no yes
9 [10] Julia Stubbs no no
10 [11] 404 n/a n/a
11 [12] manchester evening news yes yes
Sources suggested for far in this discussion as of this diff Table by Prince of Thieves (talk)
Id link author Reliable? Independent?
A [13] gazette & herald yes yes
B [14] Jessica Hope yes yes
C [15] Art Contact no no
D [16] marcelle joseph no no
Can't access via Proquest
E, F, G, H, I, J.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince of Thieves (talk • contribs) 00:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for taking the time to put that together, Prince of Thieves. I've added two more sources (re: Hands ), and an archived copy of the dead URL. If time permits, I'll add the others you mentioned tonight, including the bibliographic information for the paywalled sources. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added eleven sources to the article. Hopefully this puts notability beyond doubt; between ProQuest and Factiva there are dozens of articles about Kirby's work, not to mention the 356,000 hits that Googling 'Rick Kirby sculpture' reveals. The new sources are:
Wiltshire Gazette & Herald 2002
Hoggard 2002 (in The Independent)
Hope 2017 (Bath Magazine, as discussed)
Lonsdale 2002 (in The Daily Telegraph)
Morton 2005 (in the Sevenoaks Chronicle)
Marcelle Joseph 2012
The Times 2000
Essex Chronicle Series 2005
Suffolk Coastal and Waveney District 2017
The Independent 2002
Public Art Port Marine --Usernameunique (talk) 06:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep more than enough references to reliable sources such as Times, Telegraph, Independent also having public works in the Palace of Westminster for a pass of WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST Atlantic306 (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Ideally we'd have 2 bios or in depth articles on the subject Rick Kirby, that we don't have. Refs as numbered above 8, 11 and 13 mention the subject but don't represent significant coverage, there are a couple more similar refs that have been placed in the article so the issue of notability is less clear. How many mentions supplant 2 good bios? Szzuk (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • About 3:1, more if the mentions are meagre, but generally sources about an artists work are sufficient. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I won't dispute the approximation, but it is a subjective call. Certainly at the start of this AfD it appeared to be an obvious delete. Szzuk (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • To be fair it could technically still go either way, since although there are plenty of good sources, none of them are what you define as an in depth neutral biography. But having a number of his works unveiled by royalty (including the current British Queen), and numerous mentions of him and his work in reliable sources, and a number of very public works commissioned by public bodies, is liable to swing it to a keep regardless. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I still think this is a delete, my feeling is that there are lots of sculptors and artists of similar calibre and his work appears WP:Routine. Szzuk (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • heh, to answer that would require me assessing his calibre. But I do know the British Queen has done over 15,000 official engagements, and many of those involve unveiling artwork, she has been doing it full time for decades. But however routine it is, it is still top the top tier of British sculpture. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I almost forgot, WP:Routine only applies to events, not people. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rick_Kirby&oldid=1145685341"