Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leroy Brothers: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 07:51, 27 January 2018

Leroy Brothers

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

I spent some time removing puffery on this page, but as I looked closer, the references became less and less reliable (note the blogspot, and other copypasta press releases). Notability seems to ride almost exclusively on a two week long exhibition at Moscow MoMA of cover art for a russian rock band (http://www.mmoma.ru/en/exhibitions/gogolevsky/witness_your_world/) I am nominating to generate discussion. Theredproject (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. They seem to have a reasonably high profile, but the coverage I found wasn't really significant. The mid-20th century puppeteers of the same name seem to have more online coverage in reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looking at their biography, we can see a list of noteworthy exhibitions in which they participated http://leroybrothers.com/group-exhibitions/ They showed several times in group shows with renowned fellow artists such as [Coupland] , Wim Delvoye , Vanessa Beecroft, Cindy Sherman, Cory Arcangel, Robert Mapplethorpe, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gao_Brothers, Jan Fabre, Jaume Plensa, ... . As for the exhibitions in which they have been included we can see The Wrong Digital Art Biennale, World Expo Shanghai 2010, Trademarks City Triennale 2017, S-T-ARTS: Innovation at the nexus of Science (from the European Commission), Technology & Arts, 2017, Spazio Borgogno, ... There seems to be a link broken on the wikipage (of the gallery that doesn't seem to represent them anymore) so the article should indeed be updated and completed with some of the above information... which I intended to do but with time passing didn't get to it and forgot about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicToileBlanche (talk • contribs) 10:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NicToileBlanche (talk • contribs) appears to be a WP:SPA.198.58.168.40 (talk) 07:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did a fairly thorough search and came up with one article in Dutch that is less than a paragraph. The article sources do not cut it either.198.58.168.40 (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Keep~~ I did a quick Google search and found following articles, in Dutch, but also English, Russian, Italian, Hungarian and Chinese. The Calvert Journal, Magyar Muzeumok, Artribune, Diplomatic World, VladNews, CityWeekend Shanghai, That's Contemporary, Art Reliz, ... Also I stumbled on this book they wrote. Although they might not be very famous, I must agree with Michig that they seem to have a reasonably high profile...— Preceding unsigned comment added by NicTB (talk • contribs)

I found some of those when I searched. The Calvert Journal article only gives fairly brief coverage, the Artribune one is just an event notice with a press release, Diplomatic World - the Brothers just mentioned in a list, Vlad News - not sure whether this is just a reprint of a press release, City Weekend - a very brief interview, with no real third-party content, thatscontemporary.com - extract from a press release, last one - press release. The Hungarian Museum website looks more promising, but I still think we really need more to make an article viable. --Michig (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the above links as well. They are mostly event announcements or PR mentions. they don't approach the level of in-depth coverage required.198.58.168.40 (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no in-depth coverage or anything even approaching critical analysis in independent, reliable sources. I'm particularly miffed by the failed references. If a source like Ocula (that I would be willing to consider) provides no information beyond a date of birth then that source should not be used to support any other claims. I can't tell if this is part of a deliberate effort to deceive our readers, but I will not consider otherwise reliable sources for the purposes of establishing notability unless those sources directly support the claim. Mduvekot (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After some research I came across the following additional references, indicating this page still is valid and not violating any of the Wikipedia rules. A publication by CIAC "Leroy+Leroy "an inclusion in a printed catalogue of "International Biennale digital Art" another inclusion in a catalogue "Jing An Urban Sculpture" a publication by Guy Pieters Gallery "Windows to the World" another catalogue by At The Gallery "Witness Your World". Many group exhibitions are curated by what seem to be references in the art world. Peter Weibel from ZKM, David Quiles Guilló, Huang Du, Marco Bazzini, Pieter Jan Valgaeren (City Triennale Hasselt), Christophe De Jaeger. Furthermore on the blog there are some more elaborated essays on their work from different writers, although the sources are not always mentioned. An interview with Wagner Carelli, Editor in chief of TOP Magazine in Bresil; an essay from Kris Verburgh, publicist, doctor and science journalist; another interview linked with an exhibition in Art Center Willem3 in The Netherlands; an essay from a business psychologist named Willy Vochten; an interview in B-there Magazine; 2 TV news extracts on Chinese television ICS News and Shanghai Today; another extended essay by Tom De Mette, a philosopher with the Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences at the 'Vrije Universiteit Brussel'; and another interview with an art critic Sari Stenzer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4levels (talk • contribs) 11:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4levels (contribs) appears to be a WP:SPA with a large interest in this article only.198.58.168.40 (talk) 07:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm not impressed with the name dropping, nor with the 13 references to the subject's own website that you just provided, but I'll consider the other refs you just suggested:

http://davidquilesguillo.com/ doesn't mention our subject
http://gluon.be/author/christophe/ doesn't mention our subject
http://intersentia.com/en/author/index/view/id/1710/ doesn't mention our subject
http://marvanyfrasz.blogspot.be/2012/08/bdrtist-artist-training-and-artwork.html is a blog, not a reliable source
http://tranzitblog.hu/author/stenczer/ doesn't mention our subject
http://www.artribune.com/author/marcobazzini/ doesn't mention our subject
http://www.atthegallery.be/nl/gallery/322126151//witness-your-world/info is not an independent source
http://www.guypietersgallery.com/en/home doesn't mention our subject
http://www.parkviewartsaction.com/curator/ doesn't mention our subject
https://www.ciac-carros.fr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=93&Itemid=108 having work in a collection of a notable museum or gallery does contribute to establishing notability. I'm not convinced that the Centre international d'art contemporain (CIAC) quite meets our requirements (even the french Wikipedia gives it only a brief mention), but their collection does include works by artists who are definitely notable, so I would not object to considering this. Unfortunately, the CIAC does not provide ANY information at all about our subject, so even if we were to consider this reference valid, it still doesn't help us build an article, because it has no content.

In summary, in spite of your claim of "valid and not violating any of the Wikipedia rules", the references you proposed all fail three very basic requirements: they need to be independent, reliable and they need to be about the subject. They fail all three. Mduvekot (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I might point out to 4levels that the "independent" requirement means sources published by the Leroy Brothers, sources published on blogspot and interviews are not considered to have any weight. 198.58.168.40 (talk) 07:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 ::* https://www.ciac-carros.fr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=93&Itemid=108 having work in a collection of a notable museum or gallery does contribute to establishing notability. I'm not convinced that the Centre international d'art contemporain (CIAC) quite meets our requirements (even the french Wikipedia gives it only a brief mention), but their collection does include works by artists who are definitely notable, so I would not object to considering this. Unfortunately, the CIAC does not provide ANY information at all about our subject, so even if we were to consider this reference valid, it still doesn't help us build an article, because it has no content.
 :: In summary, in spite of your claim of "valid and not violating any of the Wikipedia rules", the references you proposed all fail three very basic requirements: they need to be [[Wikipedia:IS|independent]], [[Wikipedia:Rs|reliable]] and they need to be about the subject. They fail all three. [[User:Mduvekot|Mduvekot]] ([[User talk:Mduvekot|talk]]) 15:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
-:::Additionally, I might point out to [[User:4levels|4levels]] that the "independent" requirement means sources published by the Leroy Brothers, sources published on blogspot and interviews are not considered to have any weight. 07:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
+:::Additionally, I might point out to [[User:4levels|4levels]] that the "independent" requirement means sources published by the Leroy Brothers, sources published on blogspot and interviews are not considered to have any weight. [[Special:Contributions/198.58.168.40|198.58.168.40]] ([[User talk:198.58.168.40|talk]]) 07:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)