Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adamo Macri: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Adamo Macri: rewording
Roodhouse1 (talk | contribs)
238 edits
Line 137: Line 137:


:If the project in question doesn't even exist yet, then my stance on this issue is even more firmly cemented. Like I said before, perhaps once Macri receives more press and becomes more widely known and his project garners more recognition, an article on him will be wonderful. At this time, however, I simply believe that it's too soon. [[User:Alinnisawest|Alinnisawest]] ([[User talk:Alinnisawest|talk]]) 16:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
:If the project in question doesn't even exist yet, then my stance on this issue is even more firmly cemented. Like I said before, perhaps once Macri receives more press and becomes more widely known and his project garners more recognition, an article on him will be wonderful. At this time, however, I simply believe that it's too soon. [[User:Alinnisawest|Alinnisawest]] ([[User talk:Alinnisawest|talk]]) 16:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

'''comment''' I think you answered the question right there. If he was notable enough magazines and important art blogs would have picked up on the story by now regardless if the project exists or not. For example, when Giger mentions art in the works it is bound to make waves. I think you should probably save what you have so far and try again once the project exists physically and has some coverage. Maybe by that time Giger, Craig Martin, and some of the other big names might have info posted about it as well that you can use. There is simply not enough documentation here to work with. Even the Gawker mention was merely work that Macri apparently submitted. Anyone can submit to that from what I saw.([[User:Roodhouse1|Roodhouse1]] ([[User talk:Roodhouse1|talk]]) 23:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC))

Revision as of 23:50, 5 August 2008

Adamo Macri

Adamo Macri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

An artist working on a project for which he's made a bizarre choice of "important contributors to the treasury of culture". His article, largely by the SPA User:Macri (contributions), is sourced to his website, his blog, and an interview in somebody else's blog. The copyright stuff here suggests that Curric89 is Macri. Prod added, prod seconded, prod removed. Not verifiable. -- Hoary (talk) 05:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curric89 is a close affiliate and considered a trusting person with accurate information on Adamo Macri. Hoary: Your comment on the contributors to the Antipasto project: To my knowledge: the list he created involves a range of artists in different fields. All having contributed to society. The list is varied and devised as a Warhol approach to choosing celebrities. Meaning, just about anyone past fifteen minutes of fame. The second requirement: Macri simply likes what they do. There isn't anything bizarre, his approach was designed specifically with the nature of the project.

All web material will inevitably be sourced to-from his "blog" because a "news blog" is kept to archive and manage the content. It's where people go to get the latest on him. Your comment: "interview in somebody else's blog". The internet has changed the way we receive or access news, whether you acknowledge and validate this fact or not. Many blogs have taken precedence as major sources. Many of which are being transformed into radio and television shows. Claudio Parentela has hosted countless interviews with international artists through the many blogs he manages. As a journalist, he has contributed to many webzines and art publications.

Other comment: There is nothing suggestive about the copyright information. It clearly states the source. From Adamo Macri Studio and usage, which is public.

As a final note: You should look at the amount of people (hits) who've read this article. You may be surprised with the stats. Please reconsider your comments and the deletion of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerrytyme (talk • contribs) 17:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your final note, that has nothing to do with anything. JuJube (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JuJube: To the defense of Jerrytyme's final note: Dissemination of information is one thing, but public interest is what it's all about. Internet ranking will not occur without international awareness and response. Content can easily be written or printed, the difference is that it's actually read. Evidence and affirmation of this activity can be defended simply through web search engines. Ranking cannot be purchased, it's determined through public interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curric89 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I reiterate, that has nothing to do with anything. A Wikipedia page could have 2523532623632 views a day, if the sources are not up to snuff it will be deleted. JuJube (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP articles on artists -- or anyway, durable WP articles on artists -- are generally not written by "close affiliates" of those artists. Neither are they sourced to the artist's blog. Both are unnecessary, because the artist is of sufficient interest in the art world to be discussed publicly in independent publications: anyone may read these and summarize their content. ¶ You should look at the amount of people (hits) who've read this article. You may be surprised with the stats. / First, I'm unimpressed by publicly available "stats" (particularly those from "Alexa", which I believe only counts hits by those simple souls who use the mediocre Internet Explorer together with quasi-spyware). Secondly, which article are you talking about (this WP article?), and where are these statistics? -- Hoary (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources is sight might not up to snuff and you need more verifiable sources. most article are sourced if are not they can be tag asking for them to be sourced. some of the sources be in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject if the person knows the person they are writing about that is a not independent source. on a side note blog's Live Journal, my space are not good sources for articles Curric89 said he would add a LiveJournal extl-link with a interview that great but live journals I am pretty sure they are not a reliable source to be included in a article on here. like what Jujube said the number of views a article web site, blog, live journal, and my space pages does not mean it is notable or less notable so really who cares how many views a page gets that does not make it notable.Oo7565 (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary: By affiliation, I meant that Curric89 was and can still be provided with proper information which can be documented. Most press and other content isn't 100% acurate. It isn't a crime if you have access to the actual person (the subject matter). Isn't that what an interview is about? Getting the right stuff for the article. Others can and will add content to this article.

Again, a blog is a new format. It hasn't existed for centuries. "Neither are they sourced to the artist's blog" Most artists don't have a blog. Macri does. Sourcing an official and legitimate one based on the subject matter, isn't wrong or inappropriate, nor should we be compared to "most". Picasso was born in 1881, things have changed. Macri isn't in the Encyclopedia Britannica, he's not that old. A reliable third party article was added as an external link where the artist talks about aspects written in this article.

"I'm unimpressed by publicly available stats". I don't know what that is. I'm not aware of Alexa or spyware. What I meant by that comment was: I thought that "you" may have access to the stats of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerrytyme (talk • contribs) 01:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Semi-Strong to Mild Delete - Quite frankly, this article really consists of nothing more than a load of self-promotion, and I agree with Hoary that the copyright stuff does imply that Curric89 is Macri himself. Not saying you are/aren't, but it certainly looks that way, when you state that a piece of artwork by Macri is your own work... I also find it telling that the only people in favor of this article are Jerrytyme and Curric89, who appear only to be here for the purposes of this article. Also, the lack of articles linking to this seriously make me question its notability. I understand that sometimes supposed non-notability is just an excuse to cause controversy, but in this case... I really have to say that I think it's applicable. Alinnisawest (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alinnisawest: "nothing more than a load of self-promotion" This article included insight and the many different facets, concepts, which best described Macri's abstract approach to art. That was before it was stripped down to bare bones into something as "dry" as a birth certificate, by your fellow Wikis, claiming that the text was "incomprehensible" or something to that effect. Obviously a target audience issue. Please refer to original version for comparison.

"you state that a piece of artwork by Macri is your own work" This is an error I made with formating the page and artwork which would need to be rectified, if there is still a change.

"only people in favor of this article are Jerrytyme and Curric89, who appear only to be here for the purposes of this article" I was the one who spent the time to write it. I also got positive feedback from the reaction the studio received due to it since I initially posted it. This is why I'm defending it, it belongs to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curric89 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do understand how it all works, JuJube, thank you. A reaction to Alinnisawest's comment: the ownership implication was that I was the one who "initially" wrote the article. It's difficult to write about artists, abstract work, etc... It's complex and intimidating in general. It requires a close alliance, an understanding, in depth research of what it's all about. Thus, multiple contributors to this article won't be as easy as political, cultural or news making topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curric89 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I don't think a livejournal blog should be considered reliable. I only say that because there are a few very reliable art blogs that exist today and I can't find this artist mentioned on any of them. There is a big difference between a livejournal account and an art blog that has thousands of readers per month. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

LiveJournal: Claudio Parentela has contributed to webzines and contemporary art publications for years. If this may help the cause, here's a list of accessible web material:

Culture Canada http://www.culture.ca/explore-explorez-e/Arts&page=6

Lens Culture http://www.lensculture.com/links.html

Arts News Canada http://www.artsnews.ca

Arts Canadian CCWD http://www.artscanadian.com/emgate.htm

DVblog Random Arts and Entertainment http://dvblog.org/

Newsvine http://bowdry.newsvine.com/_news/2007/02/03/551425-multimedia-artist-adamo-macri

MoCo Video Japan http://w10.mocovideo.jp/search.php?KEY=adamo+macri&MODE=TAG&x=0&y=0

Blinkx http://www.blinkx.com/video/spout-by-adamo-macri/4ok1NsUMXoA3Wan_3BStKw

Revver http://revver.com/video/159963/alba-parts-by-adamo-macri

Truveo http://www.truveo.com/Spout-by-Adamo-Macri/id/486359864

Vimeo http://www.vimeo.com/136527

Veoh http://www.veoh.com/search.html?type=&searchId=654265348689701888&search=adamo+macri

Spike iFilm http://www.spike.com/search?query=adamo+macri&search_type=site&s.x=14&s.y=7&s=Search&mkt=en-us&FORM=VCM050

Zango http://www.zango.com/results.aspx?ct=200&search=adamo

Leech http://www.leechvideo.com/key/adamo-macri/

Excite http://www.excite.es/search/video/results?q=adamo+macri

AOL http://video.aol.com/video-detail/adamo-macri-spout/2269679273 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curric89 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I was thinking more along the lines of the art blogs by Paddy Johnson, Edward Winkleman, and Tyler Greene. All three have been mentioned in Art in America as a few of the best art bloggers around today. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Thing is, most of those sites listed above either linked to the video Spout or his blog, or didn't offer any information about him. The Newsvine one did have some information, so there you've got two valid sources (the interview and the Newsvine one) at least, but it just seems like it's not enough. Maybe after he's grown in popularity or had his work reviewed in art blogs or magazines or something, but at this point there's simply not enough about him out there to warrant an article yet. Alinnisawest (talk) 02:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously this is based on "web" content. Having loads of stuff in a fairly "new" vehicle of a "young" living artist isn't possible unless the person turns out to be a serial killer. Speaking of "serial", would this help the cause? The following list of notable individuals which have committed and endorsed him by participating in his work.

Massimo Vitali, Kiera Chaplin, John Baldessari, Karim Rashid, Mamie Van Doren, John Gilmore, Warren Fischer [Fischerspooner], Korban/Flaubert [Janos Korban & Stefanie Flaubert], John Sinclair, H.R. Giger, Loretta Lux, Sandro [Miller], Henry Rollins, Raine Maida, Peter Hook [New Order], Floria Sigismondi, Edward Ruscha, Annie Sprinkle, Barry Gifford, Sarah Maple, Thomas Beale, Michael Craig-Martin, John Rankin Waddell, Edland Man, Chris Anthony, Lynn Hershman Lesson, Mr. Olympia Gunter Schlierkamp, Franko B, Randall Slavin, Herschell Gordon Lewis, Cheryl Dunn, Cheyenne Jackson, Stefano Cagol, Adam Broomberg [Adam Broomberg & Oliver Chanarin], Carlos Alomar, Peter Walsh, Jim Lee [X-Men], Luke Slater, Ian Ayres, Jeffrey Milstein, Bryan Cassiday, Laurie Lipton, Elinor Carucci, David LaChapelle, Steven Severin [Siouxsie & the Banshees], Ron Athey, Warwick Saint, Ray Caesar, Roger Ballen, Max Hirshfeld, Adi Nes, David Faustino, Damon Gameau, Carli Hermes, Rune Olsen, Sean Kennedy Santos, Matthias Herrmann, Steve Conte [New York Dolls], David Vance, Amanda Lepore, Jeff Pickel, Andre Birleanu, Romi Dames, Barry Eisler, Jamie Hayon, Knut Larsson, Mike Garson, Ulrich Schnauss, Anthony Goicolea, Andrew James Jones, Claudia Kunin, Anthony Lister, Catherine Tafur, Chadwick Tyler, Kobi Israel, John Casey, Marcel Wanders, Laura Hughes, Marcelo Krasilcic, Andrew Yee, Ben Dunbar-Brunton, Jeremyville, Karine Laval, Arthur Lynn, Onibaka, Jon Burgerman, Roberto De Luna, Jeffrey Brown, Joe Ambrose, Poppy De Villeneuve, Nathan Sawaya, Richard Moon, Monica Majoli, Howie Pyro, Thomas Metcalf, Gibson Haynes, Lennie Lee, Terrence Koh, Max Andersson, Bodo Korsig, Nigel Poor, Dennis van Doorn, Peter Granser, Willem Kerseboom, Stuart Pearson Wright, Alnis Stakle, Clifford Bailey, Charles Cohen, Mel Ramos, Joy Goldkind, Virgil Brill, Eliza Geddes, Zachary Zavislak, Jean Jacques Andre, AA Bronson, Monika Behrens, Alessandro Bavari, Raphael Neal, German Herrera, Tim Hailand, Narcis Virgiliu, Eric Kellerman, James Higginson, Maria Lomholdt, Chris Bucklow, Martin McMurray, Sadegh Tirafkan, Rick Castro, Tune Andersen, David Creedon, Lisa Holden, Mariana Monteagudo, Miriam Cabessa, Shiromi Pinto, Gilles de Beauchene, Rene Bosch, Michael A. Salter, Adam Makarenko, Nicholas Di Genova, Sanford Biggers, David Ho, Tony Alva, Jesus Villa [HalfAnimal], Robin Williams, Tim Sullivan, Mitsy Groenendijk, Deborah Hamon, Chris Mars, Rafael Lozano-Hemmer, Priya Ray, David Ford, Jean Roman Seyfried, Natalie Lanese, Justin Kaswan, Adela Leibowitz, Eric Yahnker, John Leigh, Ric Woods, Aaron Van Dyke, Boris Hoppek, Ed Radford, Hazel Dooney, Joyce Tenneson, Fay Ku, Nathaniel Stern, Gay Block, Scott Yeskel, Michael Kenna, Rami Maymon, D. Dominick Lombardi, Adam Dugas, Markus Redl, Trine Lise Nedreaas, Tom Hunter, Anthony Gayton, Susan Jamison, Joseph Sinclair, Sarah Bereza, Matt Furie, Matteo Bosi, Shauna Born, Carlos Betancourt, Cindy Greene, Ted Noten, Justin Francavilla, Tony Moore, David Harry Stewart, Juliana Sohn, Max Von Essen, Sara Schneckloth, Thierry Bisch, Caniglia, Yuko Shimizu, Anne van der Linden, Christopher Cosnowski, Daryl Waller, Daryoush Asgar & Elisabeth Gabriel, Diamanda Galas, Glen Hanson, James Higginson, Jeremy Geddes, Mary Jane Ansell, Monica Majoli, Richard Deacon, Roberta Nitsos, Roger Ballen, Wang Qingsong, Zan Jbai, Jesse Leroy Smith, Karin Hanssen, Rachel Mason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curric89 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of those names are distinctive enough to lodge in the memory, but they haven't lodged in my memory. I mean, I haven't a clue who most are. (Perhaps I don't watch enough television.) But let's suppose they're all "notable individuals", with noteworthy taste in photography. Where's the evidence that they "have committed and endorsed him by participating in his work"? -- Hoary (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His studio has posted this information on the news blog, which is public information. He has also mentioned them in the interview. There is video footage of him with David LaChapelle. If this list of "publicly known" people weren't true, I believe that there would be at least "one" public mention of this, denying their involvement. Don't you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curric89 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do recognise a number of significant artists on the list above, but I don't see how it supports a claim to notability. As far as I can tell these people haven't "endorsed" the artist or "committed" anything. They have simply replied to a question posed by Macri.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best of my knowledge, on how the participation transpired: It was not simply "replying to a question". How so trivial. Nothing happens that easily for "anyone". All participants were asked to contribute to his unique approach to portraiture, by disclosing information. Based on initial replies received: All investigated the artist before and most needed to be supplied with a list of committed contributers before they agreed to embark. Try contacting 100 celebrities and ask them to partake in an art project? See how many will be eager to be affiliated with a "nobody" at a click of a question? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curric89 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we're looking for notable references to him online, a quick Google search shows up:
  • the Newsvine thing mentioned above
  • his blog and what appears to be a Myspace
  • his videos
No other mentions of him in, say, a newspaper or magazine. Do you have print references? Those can be referenced, although it's preferable to have online references. Seriously, though, perhaps in a few years when he becomes more widely known he should have his own article. But at this present time, he's simply not notable enough yet to warrant his own article. If there is a list of similar artists, I would say to certainly include him. Alinnisawest (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it matters (as either way the claim seems to be made by Macri alone, and thus unreliable), but are these "notable individuals" or are they "celebrities"? (I hadn't thought that there was much overlap between the two sets.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm the one making the claim because I initially wrote the article. I didn't create/own the artwork - I'm a writer, not Macri nor male. Again, my error with formating the page and images. I'm absolutely "reliable", as I've mentioned earlier, I was affiliated with someone who worked at his studio, who provided me with information I needed. As for the individuals listed: You can sort which would be considered a celebrity, notable, both or none - according to your standards. It seems to me you claim to be qualified. I don't have access to any other data/information at the moment, I'd assume that would be added by myself/others in time. Still hopeful and left to your discretion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curric89 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, by "reliability" I meant what's discussed in "WP:RS". It's not a matter of your personal reliability, either absolute or as compared with others (e.g. my own); instead, it's a matter of the lack of reliability of anybody's (e.g. your or my) personal testament, unless independently published. Wikipedia articles have to be based on material published independently and disinterestedly. -- Hoary (talk) 06:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC) ... typos fixed 21:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep I did find that the artist Caniglia mentioned the project and his involvement. Caniglia's news page, you have to scroll down to find the article, also mentions Giger and others. However, I find it very odd that Juxtapoz, Hi Fructose, or even Beautiful/Decay magazine have not picked up on this story. There is hardly any press about it. Did these people actually take part in the project or were they simply given an open invitation to be involved? Give the article some time to expand. If you have contact with someone who works for Macri you should be able to find press about him to cite. You have to remember that we live in a time of hoax art projects so people are going to be a bit skeptical when few facts can be found.(Roodhouse1 (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

My contact is no longer there. Why would it be picked up? My understanding is that it's a large project in progress. It doesn't exist yet, according to his interview. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curric89 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the project in question doesn't even exist yet, then my stance on this issue is even more firmly cemented. Like I said before, perhaps once Macri receives more press and becomes more widely known and his project garners more recognition, an article on him will be wonderful. At this time, however, I simply believe that it's too soon. Alinnisawest (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think you answered the question right there. If he was notable enough magazines and important art blogs would have picked up on the story by now regardless if the project exists or not. For example, when Giger mentions art in the works it is bound to make waves. I think you should probably save what you have so far and try again once the project exists physically and has some coverage. Maybe by that time Giger, Craig Martin, and some of the other big names might have info posted about it as well that you can use. There is simply not enough documentation here to work with. Even the Gawker mention was merely work that Macri apparently submitted. Anyone can submit to that from what I saw.(Roodhouse1 (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adamo_Macri&oldid=230090791"