Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H. Craig Hanna

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 no consensus. The subject appears to be rather borderline in relation to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and both sides of the debate herein have provided intelligent, guideline-based arguments. Ultimately, there's no consensus occurrent in this discussion. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

H. Craig Hanna

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

Lack of notability: The text reads like promotional material. The sources are the subject's agent, galleries that have simply exhibited his work, or interviews by him. No mention whatsoever of notable critics or mention in third-party, respected art-media. The Gnome (talk) 10:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability: I agree with The Gnome: promotional material and sources which are not reliable secondary sources like "New York Times" or "Art in America". There's no mention of why out of all the painters on earth this one is notable enough to be here. The last time I checked it was orphaned. This article came to my attention due to working on deletions for Wikimedia Commons; the pictures uploaded for it were not users own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is demonstrating notability. Bus stop (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that article plus the ones I found... All of these add up to satisfy WP:GNG. Binksternet (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even with that article because the "Malta Independent" article is not biographical in scope, merely about an exhibit of pictures with a slight mention of his life before. This article does not establish notability, if it did every gallery opening listing derived from a press release would establish notability of every painter in every town in the world. There need to be some reliable secondary sources here, not just blogs and small newspapers. Also noting that User:Bus stop is a contributor to the article in question. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found more sources with a paragraph or two of dedicated coverage about Hanna. For instance, the quarterly magazine Livres hebdo wrote a paragraph about Hanna and his show called carnets de dessin. Le Monde featured the same Hanna show carnets de dessin, with this article called "Les carnets de dessins de H. Craig Hanna". French Wikipedia has an article on the Laurence Esnol Gallery which opened in 2008 solely to feature Hanna's works. The magazine Profondeurchamps wrote about Hanna in the article called "H. Craig Hanna : la force du peintre ingénu", published in March 2014. These sources should be brought into the biography to beef it up. Binksternet (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above sources establish notability. This source depicts a painting titled "Carlos Sitting On A Clear Plastic Chair" about which is written (in Google translation): "Unquestionably, H. Craig Hanna plays in the virtuoso with his palette. Award in the prestigious BP Portrait Award at the National Portrait Gallery in London in 2001 with Carlos sitting on a clear Plastic Chair, selected again in 2006, the painter leaves no doubt about its technical capabilities." I believe that says that H. Craig Hanna won the "prestigious BP Portrait Award at the National Portrait Gallery in London in 2001 with" that painting. The source itself ("profondeurdechamps.com") seems to report on a wide range of topics. Bus stop (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It feels awkward to be trying to wipe a person's bio off Wikipedia, I must say! But I feel obliged to note the following:

The Laurence Esnol Gallery are Hanna's "world exclusive agents," as the French Wikipedia article states.

The Malta newspaper item is simply a report on an event in the island. It does not establish notability. The same goes for the Monde reportage, which contains not a single critical word on the artist, positive or negative, but merely announces the upcoming exhibition, along with a sample of paintings, to its readers. Hardly a notable event, or a sign of the artist's wider notability.

The only critical, third-party, extended reference to Hanna around the web is in the 'profondeurdechamps.com website, which is not widely known, if at all.

You may want to take any or all of this into consideration. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I searched the factoid H. Craig Hanna won the "prestigious BP Portrait Award at the National Portrait Gallery in London in 2001 with" and found that statement to be incorrect. According to the webpage of the National Portrait Gallery, BP Portrait Award 2001, The winner of the BP Portrait Award 2001 is: Stuart Pearson Wright (b.1975) - Title of Portrait: The Six Presidents of the British Academy. Second place was jointly won by Phil Hale and Brendan Kelley. The latter has no Wikipedia entry. Below is a section titled The following artists have been commended. Each wins £1,000: on that list is the extent of information about this artist, quote "H.Craig Hanna (b.1970) Carlos sitting on a clear plastic chair." I do not see that a commendation equals a win which calls into question the validity of the contents of the remainder of the article, none of which are supported by reliable secondary sources. Also please compare the articles; the actual winner's article is short, to the point and has citations from The Guardian, The Telegraph and The Independent. This page reads like a press release of every thing the artist has ever done and suggests WP:COI editing as it is more like what one would expect on a personal website than an encyclopedia entry. Incidentally of those commended thirteen years ago, only Thomas Leveritt has a wiki article; and it is very light on references of note. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a range of types of articles Wikipedia can write about visual artists. If this one is faulty for reading like a press release perhaps that can be remedied. The more important question is whether this article should be deleted. I don't think it should. I think there is a fair degree of evidence of a track record in the area of visual art and some recognition taken by publications that address the visual arts. Bus stop (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In 2006, the top three BP Portrait Awards were given to other artists, but Hanna was honored by having his work "Hermes and George" selected for exhibition, and for printing in the book about the exhibition, ISBN 9781855143739.[1]

"Carlos sitting on a plastic chair" was given the same degree of recognition in 1990. See BP Portrait Award, National Portrait Gallery, 1990, p. 60.

Hanna's work was selected for the National Portrait Gallery's "Portrait Gala" of 2009.[2][3]

He exhibited in Taiwan in 2002, at the Galerie Martini. Binksternet (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but a weak keep. I revamped the article, removing all of the voluminous WP:REFSPAM and other dubious references, kept the good references, as a way to try to spare it. Still, my sense is the artist is on the border here between notability and non-notability, kind of a judgment call; my sense is the artist is on the GNG side but it is up to the community to decide.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a worthy compromise. -The Gnome (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(comment) btw, Impressed, Gnome, you can ecrivez francais (write French).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I remercie you for the gentil words. :-) -The Gnome (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 21:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the sources found and work done are enough to substantiate notability. It's perhaps not the strongest case for notability but I think it sneaks over the line. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only one source has any real coverage, and that may not be that reliable, or independent a source. --Bejnar (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certain artists fall through the cracks if you only regard write-ups in the New York Times, so-to-speak. Attention should be paid to a track record of laboring away in the visual fine arts. Otherwise we are making value judgements. Many commercial spaces for instance have art decorating their walls. This is not necessarily art that challenges convention except in predictable ways. Where does that art come from? I’m not saying I know this person's art. I certainly don’t know this person. But we can see a track record. That should count for something, of course in conjunction with our standard requirement for notability in reliable sources. Be aware that good quality sources are not likely to write an article about someone who churns out reasonably priced art that serves as a reasonable substitute for what the public regards as mildly challenging art. Notice the individual’s track record. (The track record, by the way, should not be in the article, so I agree with Tom's removal of it from the article.) The shows begin in the late 90s. Again—I know little about this artist, and I should not say that he is a “hack”. (definition of "hack": a person who willingly works or acts mostly for money or other rewards without worrying about independence, beliefs, or reputation) But there are certainly many artists who produce art because it sells. Let me quickly add that I do not know that this applies to the subject of this biography. All I’m arguing is that we shouldn’t weaken Wikipedia’s coverage of visual artists when we see ample evidence of a long-term productive visual artist. Everything in visual art does not have to be about challenging convention. Nor does notability solely hinge upon exceedingly good quality. Notability also should take into consideration the evidence that a fine artist has persisted in that endeavor productively over a long period of time. Bus stop (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We make value judgments about sources, not about people. --Bejnar (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The artist has a track record. It demonstrates notability. Sources only comment upon that which is newsworthy. But is this artist noteworthy? Definitely. This is an artist whose work probably hangs on countless walls. The repeat shows are not because this work did not sell. Quite the contrary we have an indication of a working artist whose work has a following. Bus stop (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately or not, that is not the measure of notability on the Wikipedia. As one commentator put it "notability" on the Wikipedia is a term of art. Please see the guidelines for notability: WP:GNG, WP:PEOPLE, and WP:CREATIVE. Effort is not rewarded, indications are not rewarded, significant coverage in independent, published reliable sources is. --Bejnar (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing being "rewarded". Deleting an article about an artist such as H. Craig Hanna only lessens the value of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Wikipedia should not deny itself coverage of visual artists when they have adequate track records, and they show some degree of coverage in reasonably good quality sources. Should the name "H. Craig Hanna" be mentioned in an article on Figurative art or an article on Abstract art? Absolutely not. Good quality reliable sources would have to be available to support an assertion that an artist is an exemplar of a quality or a style. Such sources are entirely absent in this instance, to my knowledge. Connoisseurship concerns a separate question from whether a visual artist should be considered notable enough for an article. Bus stop (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply not how Wikipedia operates, however. Revisit the criteria for Notability, especially of living persons. Editors are not here to "cover artists" who simply have an "adequate track record." By omitting the biography of each and every such artist, Wikipedia is not being "denied" anything. Wikipedia suggests that, alternatively, one should try listing such biographies here. -The Gnome (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For visual artists we should be concerned with exhibition history. A series of exhibitions spanning many years should be a factor which should tend to serve to establish notability for Wikipedia purposes. Indeed we should be concerned with a long track record in this area. I don't think notability is established by the same means for all endeavors. Gallery shows are important for the particular endeavor of visual art. This is a system which is in place. The gallery system is something of particular significance to visual art. The gallery system may not have a strongly corresponding counterpart in other creative endeavors. If we are wondering if a potential person warrants an article on Wikipedia based on their importance to the field of visual art we indeed should be looking to exhibition history in art galleries. If these aren't vanity galleries and the exhibition history can be confirmed, then we are weighing a factor that may contribute to the argument to keep the article. Bus stop (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

| The notability is established by reliable secondary sources not by a "following". The best suggestion, I can give is to get some notable coverage in reliable news/journals first. The artist has a website for publicity, Wikipedia isn't a promotional outlet, it's an encyclopedia. I'd suggest taking a look at other artist's biographies on List of American artists 1900 and after for an idea of the amount of news/journal/book coverage to be considered notable. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Laurence Esnol Gallery provides a list of "Expositions" spanning 1997 to 2012. Can we rely on that list, and should it be taken into consideration? By the way, I have nothing to do with this artist. I never saw the name until this AfD. I just want to make that clear. It is only on principle that I am arguing. Bus stop (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Laurence Esnol Gallery is the "worldwide exclusive agent" for this particular artist. This is stated in the French wikipedia entry ("[Hanna] est représenté en permanence et en exclusivité mondiale par Laurence Esnol Gallery").-The Gnome (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.