Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 12:37, 30 October 2009

Richard Tylman

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

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 ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 02:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the event that anybody considers Russavia's nomination to be an inappropriate extension of EE battles, I will adopt this nomination as my own. I've stated below the reasons I think this article should be deleted on the merits, regardless of wiki-politics. Jehochman ^Talk 13:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no real notability established as clearly pointed out. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Marcusmax(speak) 03:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to me that he meets the minimum threshold for a published author - and enough mentions in external, independent sources here. PS. If the article is deleted, please userfy it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable, referenced, and viable...Modernist (talk) 03:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom,upon investigating the refs don't really hold up...Modernist (talk) 03:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about the world of poetry publishing, but it seems like his work for ads featured in Time magazine, etc. that I point out below would by itself make for notability. Is there something wrong with those refs?radek (talk) 12:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as contributing to advertisements is not notable unless reliable sources discuss the merit of said contributions. Please delete only after Arbcom case The following was stricken due to the request by Russavia: is closed as this is the vanity article of User:Poeticbent (and his IP socks confirmed in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Poeticbent) about himself, see also Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_23#Richard_Tylman. Poeticbent, and User:Piotrus who voted keep above, are Involved_parties to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list which is also about coordinated editing. This article is a prime example, it would hardly have survived if not supported by other Polish editors. It's edit history should remain as evidence until the case is closed, then maybe moved to User space or elsewhere, out of the limelight. is closed. -- Matthead Discuß 03:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthead, I do believe that the comments you have posted above are not helpful for the discussion, as they have been presented. Could you please strike the lot, and present an argument based upon the merits. I can't find anywhere at WP:EEML where the article is being presented as evidence or the like, so there is no real need for it to be kept. But if it should be going to be used as evidence (I don't see what for really), we can still discuss here, and move it to userspace, thereby keeping history if it is needed. Anyway, please consider striking comments. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 04:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. -- Matthead Discuß 15:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whatever the notability of the published poetry, I think this well-sourced paragraph establishes general notability: His work has been featured in advertisements published in newspapers and magazines such as Time,[8][9][10] Maclean's,[11] and Chatelaine.[12] Amongst the corporations for whom he provided illustrations are Petro-Canada, BCTel,[13] and the British Columbia Lottery Corporation, as well as Canadian Pacific Airlines[14][10] with Wardair,[14] Pacific Western Airlines[8] with American Express,[15] Energy Mines and Resources Canada,[16] Tourism British Columbia for Expo 86,[17] West Edmonton Mall, Tetra Pak, Sun-Rype,[12] The Province and others.. It's sourced to Time, Maclean's and other secondary sources which definitely make the subject notable. radek (talk) 12:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the advertisements are not sourced to Time, Maclean's, etc. All that is being "linked" to is the existence of the advertisements in those publications, and there is no verifiable evidence from a reliable sources that the subject of the article has had anything to do with their creation. As a sidenote, a friend of mine works in Sydney for one of the biggest advertising agencies in the country, and does much the same type of work; under that interpretation of notability, almost any airbrush illustrator in the world would be worthy of an article. That is not, however, the case. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 13:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing I can do to alleviate your bitterness, but be assured, Time Magazine has never stopped charging their clients oodles for double spreads with illustrations regardless of how much has improved in terms of printing technology. Funny, you have a friend whose mind you can read, but in the print media WYSIWYG had always been the name of the game, in New York and in Toronto, even though it wasn't the case in Sydney if we were to believe you. --Poeticbent talk 20:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - quite a few cited sources. I don't see any harm to keep this article.--Jacurek (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most or all of the reliable-looking sources are actually a form of synthesis and thus original research. The sources are used as primary references in an attempt to assert notability, the subjects work has appeared in all these famous places, so he must be famous too. No, he does not appear to be notable. Sprinkling an article with impressive-looking references does not work when the references don't talk about the subject. I do not see any substantial coverage of the subject by reliable sources, therefore, delete. Jehochman ^Talk 18:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—I would have voted Keep the last time around, and I would have preferred less combative timing on Russavia's part, and ideally, to have the AfD come from someone not portrayed as an adversary of individuals on the EEML. That said, the article does not seem to have progressed much since (I haven't checked the edit history, this is just my sense). I would suggest that as that the likeliest editors to add additional references in support of notability are currently otherwise occupied at EEML—going back to my concerns regarding timing—that the AfD simply be revisited a month from now and perhaps the article will have been improved and we discuss its merits at that time especially as there hasn't been an entry in the article's talk page since JANUARY of this year. It's rather poor form to nominate and article for deletion without expressing one's concerns in article talk and allowing editors the opportunity to make necessary improvements, especially when no one has had anything to say about the article for the better part of an entire year.
I'm curious, are lodgings of AfD's regarding Baltic/EE articles and personalities within the scope of Russavia's topic ban or not? VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 19:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment II—Whereas Tylman's English work appears to be self-published, his work does appear in Polish, for example,

Jerzy Aleksander Karnasiewicz (fotografie) George Alexander KARNASIEWICZ (Photographs)
"NOWA HUTA - OKRUCHY ŻYCIA I MEANDRY HISTORII" "Nowa Huta - The Remains LIFE AND HISTORY meanders"
Teksty: o. Niward St. Texts: Fr Nivard St. Karsznia O.Cist., Franciszek Macharski, Jacek Majchrowski, Jan Paweł II, Alison Stenning, Ryszard Terlecki Karsznia O. Cist., Franciszek Macharski, Jacek Majchrowski, John Paul II, Alison Stenning, Richard Terlecki Poezja: Ryszard Tylman, Barbara Urbańska Poetry: Richard Tylman, Barbara Urbanska Wyd. Ed. Towarzystwo Słowaków w Polsce, 2003 Association of Slovaks in Poland, 2003

This is outside the realm of hack commercial illusrtation. Again, I would suggest handling this appropriately: discuss deficiencies and requested improvements in talk, then see where things stand. Voting at all, and certainly either way based on "per what the other guy said," is a bit premature. Is there a WP:TRAIN we're all rushing to catch? VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 19:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment III—Nor is it that difficult (a few more minutes, takes some doing to filter out the Wiki-google-babble) to find a review. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 19:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This nomination is a blatant abuse of EE editing restrictions placed on the nominator by ArbCom as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Russavia

I intend to write a report about this to ArbCom and to Sandstein personally within the next few hours. Please note, that users driven by a desire for revenge have attacked me before. As a notable wikipedian active in Eastern European topics often veiled in controversy, I serve as an easy target. It would therefore be naïve to expect that these BLP attacks will ever stop, especially during ArbCom proceedings involving extremists from many opposing camps. However, I cannot and will not regret being a part of the process for as long as this portal remains one of the most widely used resource tools online. Having to defend myself from problem users is the price I’m willing to pay for the privilege of writing about topics of vital importance for innumerable web surfers out there. --Poeticbent talk 20:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A sourced article about a notable contemporary artist. There is no reason to delete it, except for some personal axes to grind. Tymek (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to continue The Great Patriotic Wiki War. You can't control Russavia's actions, but you certainly can control your own. Please stop battling. If he's going to look bad, let him. Jehochman ^Talk 00:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom clerk comment: Just a general notice that this page is under scrutiny, due to its peripheral relationship to an active Arbcom case. However no Arbcom directives have been made and this page is hence to proceed as a standard AFD. Poeticbent - Russavia cannot violate a sanction which hasn't yet passed. Manning (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up Manning, but please confirm whether the existing ban still holds as per following quote:

2) Russavia (talk · contribs) … may freely edit other articles and pages but remains banned from Eastern European pages under the terms of Sandstein's original ban.

I’m a Polish-born author and fine art painter with a solid track record, therefore, a Wikipedia page about my person including the influence I once excerpted upon the young Polish art scene would likely fall within Eastern European matters. I’d like to have that confirmed before I start approaching arbitrators so as not to waste anybody’s time including mine. This BLP attack on me is a de facto attack on an Easter European contemporary artist and writer originally from Poland. Wouldn't you agree? --Poeticbent talk 02:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom have instructed me to let this AFD proceed and be decided on its merits. I will only intervene if this AFD discussion is improperly hijacked by disputes related to the EEML case. If you want a deeper clarification you will need to contact Arbcom, although with the entire EEML case being actively debated at present you may not get a swift response. Beyond that I have no personal comment. Manning (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better evidence of notability exists. Does not appear to be much more notable than any other "routine advertising illustrator".
The evidence of notability seems to be: 1/ considered an "up and coming artist" on one occasion in 1980 when he represented Kraków, and 2/ in his day to day work has worked on some some household name clients (+ reflected glory of where they paid to be published) and been in a team that won an industry award in Canada. These are just not enough to make the individual stand out among illustrators. Looking at other notability guidances such as PROF, ENTERTAINER, and POLITICIAN (BIO related) or CORP, etc, a much higher standard of discrimination is usually set for "notability in one's field of work", wherever criteria have been defined. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

actually, it's not that they're higher, but that they are different. The option of meeting the GNG always remains. I am not entirely sure that makes sense, but it has consistently been the interpretation of the relationship between the general and the special rules. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I nominated it the first time round, and I can't add much to the new nomination. The particularly lack of notability lies in the obscurity of publications mentioned, as well as many being evidently self-published; and I certainly agree that listing publications where commercial art appears doesn't constitute sourcing or demonstration of notability. We want articles about Richard Tylman in publications of some visibility. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without prejudice to renomination by someone else after the arb closes, if it ever does. I consider this a spectacularly blatant example of a bad faith nomination--If arb com does not see it this way, perhaps the community will. Regardless of the merits of the article, this sort of nomination should not be tolerated. It's essentially a Personal Attack DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jehochman. The sources do not support sufficient notability to justify an article. Cla68 (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per FT2, the sources do not seem particularly reliable and the seem to constitute some sort of backwards WP:CRYSTAL violation. Triplestop x3 02:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - largely per FT2 and per nom. The subject clearly doesn't meet notability requirement - Alison ^❤ 05:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Radek and DGG. Seems notable and sourced just enough to meet GNG. The circumstances of the nomination also do not help to judge in serenity. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This shouldn't be a surprise to anybody, but regardless, I also find comments made by DGG, Radek and Cyclopia to be most revealing. There's a difference between genuine interest in improving the overall quality of this portal, and a political provocation stemming from years of frustration, personal grievances, and general disenchantment with the coverage of Eastern European affairs in Wikipedia. --Poeticbent talk 15:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To closing administrator, this AfD has become a battlefield in the Eastern European disputes. On the one side we have the usual pro-Poland disputants voting keep, and on the other side we have pro-Russia disputant Russavia nominating for deletion. I strongly recommend discounting the tendentious votes of those who are here to battle. Give more weight to the opinions of the uninvolved parties such as DGG and Alison, among others. Jehochman ^Talk 18:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep of course. The AfD is clearly politically motivated, with numerous delete votes coming from people trying to have a revenge on damned Poles on wiki. The article has numerous sources, though he is a relatively little known figure, he deserves an article much more than Pokemon figures or stubs on tiny and extremely obscure organizations like Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin Movement (though I'd personally keep the latter, too). --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I voted delete in the first AfD and always assumed that the article was allowed to stay because the primary editor, User:Poeticbent, is a barnstarred editor of some worth. All this Poland v Russia geopolitical stuff is news to me.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Several editors here have COIs:
- Richard Tylman's wikipedia account is user:Poeticbent, as he had revealed here and as is obvious from the 1st AfD and his comments above
- Several users voting here are off-wiki friends of Richard Tylman (list)
- The nominating editor is involved in disputes with this group. I thus recommend that the closing admin discount all votes of people involved in the WP:EEML case and that this AfD is decided per the arguments of the uninvolved participants in this AfD. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would be the sensible thing to do. Jehochman ^Talk 12:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If votes are going to be discounted, then why shouldn't the nomination itself be discounted, seeing as the nominator is also one of the listed parties in the ArbCom case? Or, if the nom stands, the proper recommendation is to discount everyone "involved" in the case properly understood - including all those that *chose* to make lengthy edits and present "evidence" at the case pages. In other words, I agree with Jehochman above that more weight should be given to truly uninvolved parties like DGG and Allison (and of course, the other ones). In fact, on that note, I will personally withdraw my own vote.radek (talk) 08:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've adopted the nomination. The closing administrator may pretend that Russavia has posted nothing on this page, for the purposes of closing this AfD. Discount their vote too. Jehochman ^Talk 12:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
 **Several users voting here are off-wiki friends of Richard Tylman [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision&oldid=322216927#Topic_ban (list)]
 **The nominating editor is involved in disputes with this group. I thus recommend that the closing admin discount all votes of people involved in the [[WP:EEML]] case and that this AfD is decided per the arguments of the uninvolved participants in this AfD. [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd|talk]]) 06:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
+***That would be the sensible thing to do. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 12:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 :If votes are going to be discounted, then why shouldn't the nomination itself be discounted, seeing as the nominator is also one of the listed parties in the ArbCom case? Or, if the nom stands, the proper recommendation is to discount everyone "involved" in the case properly understood - including all those that *chose* to make lengthy edits and present "evidence" at the case pages. In other words, I agree with Jehochman above that more weight should be given to truly uninvolved parties like DGG and Allison (and of course, the other ones). In fact, on that note, I will personally withdraw my own vote.[[User:Radeksz|radek]] ([[User talk:Radeksz|talk]]) 08:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
+::I've adopted the nomination.  The closing administrator may pretend that Russavia has posted nothing on this page, for the purposes of closing this AfD.  Discount their vote too. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 12:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)