Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim White-Sobieski

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. While the nom had a valid point, the four cogent arguments made to keep the article are grounded in policy, and no other editor has supported deleting the article. Even though 3 of the 4 are weak keeps, the consensus is keep, albeit weakly. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 22:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tim White-Sobieski[edit]

Tim White-Sobieski (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)

Biography of a modern artist that seems to fail WP:ARTIST. Lots of references/external links - and all seem to be to limited circulation, mostly offline catalogs, gallery pages selling his work, and other local/not-in-depth/unreliable sources. I couldn't find any in-depth coverage on him in GNews/GBooks; google gives social media/gallery sites... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Don't consider deleting until the following has been remedied: This is the formula for losing a promising new writer for Wikipedia. This is one of two articles submitted by the writer/editor and both are up for deletion in only a few days after creation, on the VERY FIRST ATTEMPTS AT WRITING ARTICLES. So far as I can see, no one has offered to talk to the writer to offer help, just slapped a delete tag on his/her works. There are news sources available on this subject, and if I can I will help. But I suggest that those slapping delete tags on works should start improving their own under-sourced and easy-to-label-as not-notable articles.Jacqke (talk) 11:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Jacqke: Your argument for keeping is totally irrelevant to to the merits of the article, hence totally not a valid argument here. You should bring it to Wikipedia deletion policy, but I am pretty sure it's a dead horse. And anyway, personally, I think it is not a good argument, because I, for one, became an active editor following the deletion of my first contribution in 2003. It motivated me to learn the rules and learn how to write articles which are notable, copyvio-free, etc. I agree we need to be more friendly to new editors, but that does not extent to giving their content a pass just because they are new. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is lots of coverage online, and many mentions in Google News / Google Books. None of the online sources are particularly in-depth, but there do seem to be enough exhibition catalogues from reasonably notable galleries / museums to write a proper article. The current article does require a lot of cleanup, though -- it reads more suitable for an exhibition catalogue than for an encyclopaedia. I think this makes this a weak keep. —Kusma (t·c) 11:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep He has an entry on imdb.com and is notable enough based on online searches. However I would be opposed to his article being a featured article TypingInTheSky (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This article is definitely overkill. Way too much info, far too much analysis. This is an encyclopedia, not a catalogue essay. However, his exhibition record easily satisfies WP:ARTIST: he's been in numerous museum exhibitions and is part of many collections. As for WP:GNG, he just reaches the threshold. I would like to see more third-party sources (there's far too many catalogue essays) but the bare minimum is there. I'd also like to point out that limited circulation and/or offline publications are not liabilities. We need sources that are independent of the subject and it looks like there are a few. In-depth museum catalogues are good for WP:ARTIST however as they demonstrate importance in the field. freshacconci talk to me 18:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep - This person fails WP:ARTIST, but that is not a sole factor in deciding what is notable and what is not. Does the person meet WP:GNG? Barely. And I do mean barely. He (and one or more of his works) is mentioned in many different sources, such as this magazine article, as well as this one. He's also mentioned in some news articles as well (such as here (translated), and here (also translated)). The sources (collectively) do add up to be significant per se, and there are many more sources that do mention his work such as art centers and publishers (not secondary sources, but they are noted and considered). Why such a weak keep? Because I don't see any sources that cover the person himself in an in-depth manner, nor do I see anything regarding his work that asserts any kind of cultural, social, or societal impact. I'm really on the fence about this vote, mostly because the sources that I found mention him and one or more of his artistic pieces, but aren't exclusively covering the person. But, the many sources I found were plentiful, reliable, and secondary. For these reasons, I believe the article meets WP:GNG and that notability is established... barely, but just enough. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 01:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your comments!

  • Comment I agree,@Piotrus: that I should know the rules of Wikipedia more thoroughly - it will make me a better editor in the future.
  • Comment As per your advice, I have deleted all the external links in the body of the article, and have also truncated catalog language, @Kusma: and @Freshacconci:, so hopefully it reads as a fact-based article more now.

What shall I do as far as images copyright? I really don't understand how that works. If the image is self-photographed, then what is the issue? Shall I get a letter from the artist's studio manager to verify that these images are acceptable to use in an encyclopedic context?

I would greatly appreciate any further advice you can give me to ameliorate the status of this article, and to remove all of those flags as soon as possible.

I am myself a dedicated Wikipedia user, referring to its information on many subjects and consider the article on this artist to be a great educational resource for those interested in video art and installations.

Thank you again everyone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulinapaulina3030 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Paulinapaulina3030: Thank you for fixing the EL issue. The notability tag should be removed after the likely closure of this AfD as keep. Regarding the images, please see commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Art_.28copies_of.29; bottom line is that art is copyrighted 70 years until after the artist's death and it is illegal for people to reproduce it (that includes sharing digital images). Yes, this is widely ignored (Facebook, most of the net), but Wikipedia tries to respect the law (unlike most other sites), which does cause some confusion. To have this and/or other images stay on Wikipedia, follow the guideline sat Commons:OTRS#Licensing_images:_when_do_I_contact_OTRS.3F (and please note that as this is an encyclopedia, we would like to see the photo of the artist even more so than that of his/her art). Finally, I would just like to verify whether you are or are not User:Butterbeanne? If so, please note that Wikipedia policy is for an editor to operate only one account, and clearly mark the others they use (see WP:SOCK). If you are not Butterbeanne, then of course this is irrelevant. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Piotrus: Thank you! Do you know how long it would take to take effect re: AfD flag? I will take care of images asap, just want to read everything thoroughly.

Yes, I can confirm I am not User:Butterbeanne, but know this editor and have also used their guidance. I don't know what I can provide as proof for my identity, except that I must have my own distinct ip address. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulinapaulina3030 (talk • contribs) 20:01, November 2, 2015‎ (UTC)

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/Tim_White-Sobieski&oldid=1138481082"