| Revision as of 22:44, 9 January 2010 editTriplestop (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers9,697 edits +← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:56, 9 January 2010 edit undoMalik Shabazz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers106,163 edits replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
| :*How does being a team of individuals who won an industry award make him notable? He was considered an up and coming artist by the Polish newspaper, so if he were notable then surely there are more sources to show notability? Seems like a backwards ] vio to me. And how is that anthology a ''(a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.''? Looking at the notability guidelines for artists, there does not appear to be anything to distinguish him from a routine advertising illustrator/NN poet. A string of trivial coverage does is not sufficient. ] ]</font> 22:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC) | :*How does being a team of individuals who won an industry award make him notable? He was considered an up and coming artist by the Polish newspaper, so if he were notable then surely there are more sources to show notability? Seems like a backwards ] vio to me. And how is that anthology a ''(a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.''? Looking at the notability guidelines for artists, there does not appear to be anything to distinguish him from a routine advertising illustrator/NN poet. A string of trivial coverage does is not sufficient. ] ]</font> 22:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::#Backwards CRYSTAL? The ''Głos'' interview took place in 2003, when Tylman was hardly an "up and coming artist". And you'd know that if you spent a little time and read the article under discussion here instead of attacking it because you don't like its subject. | |||
| ::#Please read ] more carefully. There is no need for a creative artist to satisfy ] if she or he satisfies ]. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 22:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:56, 9 January 2010
Richard Tylman
AfDs for this article:- Richard Tylman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm (procedurally) starting another AfD for this article, since the outcome of the previous AfD was "endorsed pending the final decision in the related ArbCom case". It is alleged that the previous AfDs were subject to votestacking.
For the relevant history, one could review the arbcom case, the previous AfD, WP:COIN thread and the Deletion review.
The previous nomination is quoted below:
The subject of this article fails both WP:ARTIST and WP:AUTHOR, and appears to be have been created as a vanity article. The article subject has not been the recipient of significant press coverage and bok which the subject has published appear to be more like self-published booklets. Searches for Aspidistra Press show Tylman to the only person published by this publisher, indicating self published works. Richard_Tylman#Poetry confirms this as it says they are self published. There are no critical reviews or commentary of his works, so notability as an author/poet is not existent. His visual arts notability is also non-existent. There is zero notability in anything he has done in Poland before emigrating to Canada. His working as an airbrush illustrator is not notable - this occupation is a dime a dozen, and it would appear that the long list of works are referenced to the actual advertisement, not critical commentary on his works. The other problem is the sourcing to Tylman's own website. Yes, the article does have a lot of sources, but none of them establish notability for the subject. Russavia 02:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Triplestop x3 17:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Again? Its only two months since the last AFD. Off2riorob (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, remember these are not normal circumstances. Triplestop x3 17:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Whats not normal about it? I don't see a good reason or a relevant change to AFD the article again. Off2riorob (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- The previous AfD was distracted by a certain Arbcom case. I'm starting one now in hopes of focusing on the merits of the article now that the case is over with. See the Drv link above. Triplestop x3 18:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, there was somewhat of a consensus to relist the AfD after the ArbCom case is closed: Also see the remark of the closing admin SPLETTE :] 18:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see any actual issues as regards the last AFD, imo nothing has changed since the last AFD. Off2riorob (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- There is strong suspicion that canvassing by the WP:EEML cabal influenced the previous AfD. Now that several EEML members have been topic banned, it is a good idea to try again to get a non-canvassed result. Offliner (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- There is strong suspicion that frequently repeating a lie convinces many people to believe it. But it never changes a lie into the truth. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 22:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- There is strong suspicion that canvassing by the WP:EEML cabal influenced the previous AfD. Now that several EEML members have been topic banned, it is a good idea to try again to get a non-canvassed result. Offliner (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see that at all, suspicions etc, I see a determined campaign to delete the article, there are better things to be deleting, there are currently over fifty two thousand BLP article without any citations at all.. but we find ourselves here for the third time, oh well, lets see what happens. Off2riorob (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Good faith is not a cop out to stop me voicing my opinion. In a good faith way of course. Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- No one is trying to stop you from voicing your opinion (??), but statements like "a determined campaign to delete the article" push the boundaries of good faith. Triplestop clearly states that this is a procedural nomination. freshacconci talktalk 21:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC
- Yes, sometimes the interpretation of good faith stops people saying what they see, there is history regarding this article, that is undeniable. Off2riorob (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't say the AfD was canvassed. I stated that it was alleged, and presented links to the evidence for people to make their own judgment. Also, this nomination was not discussed or planned off-wiki beforehand in any way. Triplestop x3 21:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. Fails all five points of WP:ARTIST. Offliner (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Off2riorob (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Off2riorob (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Off2riorob (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, I don't see sufficient notability of the subject being established. SPLETTE :] 17:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. None of the sources are actually about him. Renata (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the Poetry-related deletion discussions. —Poeticbent talk 20:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the Authors-related deletion discussions. —Poeticbent talk 20:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. —Poeticbent talk 20:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Tylman's team was given an Award of Excellence at Graphex (a competition sufficiently notable to merit a Misplaced Pages article). That would seem to satisfy WP:ANYBIO.
Also, Tylman was the subject of an article in Głos – Tygodnik Nowohucki. He and his poem, "An Attempt at Blowing Up the Statue of Lenin", were brought up in several interviews with the author of Nowa Huta. Okruchy życia i meandry historii, a photo anthology that includes the poem. (The authors of other texts in the anthology were not discussed.) Tylman may not be a slam-dunk case of notability, but I think the balance weighs in his favor. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 22:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC) - Keep Tylman does have a degree of personal notability, easily enough to warrant an article imo. Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- How does being a team of individuals who won an industry award make him notable? He was considered an up and coming artist by the Polish newspaper, so if he were notable then surely there are more sources to show notability? Seems like a backwards WP:CRYSTAL vio to me. And how is that anthology a (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.? Looking at the notability guidelines for artists, there does not appear to be anything to distinguish him from a routine advertising illustrator/NN poet. A string of trivial coverage does is not sufficient. Triplestop x3 22:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Backwards CRYSTAL? The Głos interview took place in 2003, when Tylman was hardly an "up and coming artist". And you'd know that if you spent a little time and read the article under discussion here instead of attacking it because you don't like its subject.
- Please read WP:BIO more carefully. There is no need for a creative artist to satisfy WP:ARTIST if she or he satisfies WP:ANYBIO. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 22:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)