Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by M0RD00R (talk | contribs) at 06:25, 13 January 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 I'm chanting as we speak 02:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Triplestop x3 17:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again? Its only two months since the last AFD. Off2riorob (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, remember these are not normal circumstances. Triplestop x3 17:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Yeah, there was somewhat of a consensus to relist the AfD after the ArbCom case is closed:[1][2] Also see the remark of the closing admin [3]SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 18:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Talk/Stalk 22:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
How about an assumption of good faith? freshacconci talktalk 21:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  1. 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.
  2. 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 Talk/Stalk 22:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
His group, not him received the award. His group may be notable but he is not. I assure you I have no opinion of the subject as a person and am only interested in seeing a fair result from this AfD debate. The link in reference leads to the subject's own website which fails WP:V. Triplestop x3 23:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The copy on Tylman's website is a convenience link. If you don't believe it to be a true copy of the article, find the August 8, 2003, edition of Głos in a library. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take a look at the statements sourced to the page.
In his early teens, Tylman became the youngest member of the Plastic Arts’ Club for adults[7] at the DK HiL Community Centre in Nowa Huta, and exhibited his first oil paintings in gallery group show. Following high school he enrolled at the Kraków University of Technology Faculty of Architecture, encouraged by his father.
How does being in a non-notable club and going to a University establish notability? Triplestop x3 00:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
COI: Biophys is a friend of Tylman/Poeticbents, see WP:EEML for details. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
COI: Several of the commenters here could probably be described as enemies of the subject (again in relation to WP:EEML). I suggest that if this gets closed by means of a vote count, that all "votes" from anyone with any kind of history with Poland/Eastern Europe editing be discounted, so we can see just the opinions of neutrals judging the article on its merits.--Kotniski (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish. Who died and left Skäpperöd in charge of deciding whether Biophys is capable of applying Wikipedia guidelines properly. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 09:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems borderline notable. No BLP issues. Don't see how the encyclopedia would be improved by deleting this article. --Kotniski (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - quite simply, if there is no significant coverage in independent sources we cannot write an article. The bulk of the article seems to be sourced to the subject of the article. The only source that is actually about the subject of the article is in Glos, hardly significant coverage, hardly enough to start an article. The obscurity of Glos makes it even difficult to assess whether this article satisfies WP:SPIP. Evidently this individual is like millions of professionals who have received some minor prices, and might have been mentioned in obscure publications such as Glos - but that does not mean they are notable, because notability requires significant coverage. And significant coverage is necessary to write an article, because otherwise we have articles like these that are overwhelmingly sourced to the individual and not to independent sources. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the cited sources are obviously not written by the subject (please look in the article). As about Glos, we have Głos – Tygodnik Nowohucki. He looks like someone notabe in Poland, just as many Russian authors are only well known in Russia. But that does not preclude creating articles about them. Biophys (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the article, most of the references point to the webpage of the article subject. Even the Glos article was apparently written by the subject of the article, so I am not sure how notable this publication really is. A copy seems to be at the Polish national library, but neither the Krakov nor the Warsaw university library seem to hold copies what qualifies this publication as obscure, even in Poland. Again, notability requires significant coverage, and significant coverage is just not here. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although there are other examples of articles on Wikipedia also lacking "notability", that is not a sufficient excuse to keep this one. Having read and re-read both this article and external links related to it, I see no basis for its inclusion in the encyclopedia. The additional fact that the subject of the article actually would have the egotistical arrogance to create an article about himself [4] sets a very bad precedent. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with creating an article about yourself, it is not as you claim a sign of egotistical arrogance at all and it is much more common than you think. Off2riorob (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it is a more common practice than I think or not, is unimportant. I find doing so to be distasteful and a bad precedent. My main concern with the article however, is lack of notability. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Who originally created an article is completely irrelevant to the notability of the subject, and any !vote based on that argument should be deprecated. I further become suspicious when a nominator or single editor argues tendentiously against every keep vote, but that, too, is irrelevant as to keep/delete. Where there is reasonable doubt, as there is in this case, the default is properly Keep, because having a non-notable article, provided the information in it is adequately supported by reliable source (which information can be very brief, the article can be a stub), does no harm, whereas deleting it makes article growth much more difficult and wastes or even insults the work of all those who contributed. --Abd (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The doubt is in the minds of all those who have !voted Keep, isn't that obvious? I'm wary of those who claim that there is no doubt about a thing being absent when it obviously is present. It is not normal discussion for one participant in an AfD, which is a community process, to respond to most comments on one side with argument. If there is more evidence to be presented, by all means, present it, but there is never evidence for non-notability, so I'd recommend shutting up and let editors present what evidence they have, and discuss only actual evidentiary issues, and let the community and the closer decide what's cogent and what's not. --Abd (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For reference, I haven't checked to see if there is a pattern, but it's possible an attempt was made to harass me or others over my !vote. I certainly hope this kind of thing does not continue. --Abd (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC) The editor apologized, so I struck this comment --Abd (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see Triplestop commented on a single 'keep' vote here. Where exactly is your problem concern? What I find way more troublesome is if an editor who happens to be the subject of the article not only comments on 'delete' votes but attacks voters or (wrongly) accuses them to be meatpuppets. Isn't that a hint that the concerns about WP:COI are not completely unfounded? SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 05:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concern about COI is legitimate, but irrelevant. Poeticbent is obviously COI and appears to be behaving within bounds in this AfD, the alleged offense is a dead horse from a the previous AfD. It would be ridiculous to suppose that the subject of an article can't comment in an AfD on it, COI editors are allowed to make suggestions and comments. Poeticbent could be so outrageous in his behavior that he'd be immediately blocked, and it would be completely irrelevant to the basic question, which is notability and only notability.
  • My sense is that the article should be stubbed to remove whatever cannot be established from independent reliable source, except for certain personal details that we normally allow to come from a subject himself (i.e., from self-published material). That excess material exists in an article is never an argument for delete, it's an argument for fixing the article.
  • It appears that some comments in this AfD may now be coming as a result of Offliner's comment on my Talk page, and I strongly urge the closer to consider arguments and review and check evidence, instead of numbers of !votes, which should be irrelevant. Had that been done with AfD 2, we'd not be further wasting our time here. If canvassing has taken place, all that it can do of harm is to multiply !votes, it can't create cogent arguments unless it does, in fact, attract more knowledgeable editors, which would be a good thing, so please, folks, let's focus on the issue: notability and evidence and arguments relevant to that, not to editor behavior. AfD closers are not required to assess some sort of majority opinion, and I've seen AfD's closed with Delete, and successfully -- it stuck -- where half of the !votes were opposite to the conclusion. And the half included many experienced editors. It stuck in spite of apparent "no consensus" because the closer hewed to the arguments instead of numbers. If the closer was in error, it would have gone to DRV, which is often more efficient than reams of debate in an AfD. --Abd (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject of BLP seems unnotable. Mathsci (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sourcing purported to support notability remains unconvincing, especially the points about his work as an illustrator. No clear signs of non-trivial, public critical attention on his personal work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not easy (or IMO actually possible) to check and correct for subtle bias in the autobiography because there are insufficient non-trivial independent sources primarily about the subject. What sources there are, are either relatively trivial, or lack independence, or both. Guy (Help!) 15:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. having carefully examined the evidence presented on this page and weighted all the arguments I am of the opinion that the subject of the article is notable enough to have an article.  Dr. Loosmark  15:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, while extending full respect towards Poeticbent for accomplishments of which he should be justly proud. However, I can see no significant discussion of his self-published works or his particular contribution to the paid advertisements, and no real sourcing in this article outside of material published by organizations in which he has been somewhat involved; it is to the advantage of competitions to publish information about the competitors and their information is self-published by those organization. Unless there are sources in journals, magazines, books, newspapers, etc to discuss Tylman and his impact in some way, I do not feel that this article is justified under our inclusion guidelines. Karanacs (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Not only that, but the source for the biographical data used by these competitions will always be the subject himself. I can't see any of the sources cited for which this is not true. None of them appears to be independent of the subject. Guy (Help!) 11:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (weakish, however): Though only barely notable enough for a Wikipedia article in my opinion, it is (at least) representative of what a decent Wikipedia article should look like - it is well-written, well-sourced, well-laid out.. not to mention generating a wealth of discussion on the talk page.. its many good qualities are enough to tip the scale in favor of keep, for the betterment of the encyclopedia as a whole. As per Kotniski's statement above, no good will come out of deleting this. -- œ™ 09:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neither notable enough nor convincingly sourced. Varsovian (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources do not appear to constitute significant coverage. There is an element of trying too hard, which to my mind indicates the sparsity of coverage, and hence lack of notability. Quantpole (talk) 11:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability sufficiently established, and !votes based on personal opinions about any editor should be deprecated in analysing the reasons given for or against deletion. Author is referred to in more than a dozen WP articles (not making him "notable" but assuredly pointing out that editors of those articles found him notable). In Polish WP [5] so we should also accept that if a person is notable for their native-language WP, it is the onus for showing non-notability to remove articles in the English WP. This is, to me, the deciding issue. Collect (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that the article in the Polish WP was also created by the subject himself (using his static IP 207.102.64.135)? SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 14:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that Polish WP should be "deciding," that's weak. As to the creation of that article, it was IP created in 2005, I don't know how Splettte knows that this was Tylman, but maybe it was, it would make sense, but so what? The IP hasn't edited the article, which is practically a stub, since 2006, and this is the kind of article that used to be common on WP. Articles that I wanted to read if I wanted to look up the topic, but that don't prove anything about notability and are unsourced. I used to like those articles here, as a reader. And I knew that this was a wiki and that whatever was said without sources was unreliable. Hence my view is that if there is doubt about notability, keep, and fix sourcing problems either by adding sources or removing unsourced text, leaving, if necessary, a stub of undeniably verifiable information, even if the sources aren't strong as to notability. A stub is much better than delete in terms of value to the readership, and there will be material in history that can be read by future editors. Delete makes access become limited only to administrators, and if news appears, a new article may be created instead. But this is a completely general argument. The issue here is whether or not the article meets at least minimum notability standards, and, as I've said, it's marginal. Because it's marginal, in my opinion, my conclusion is Keep, for the reasons stated. --Abd (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Richard_Tylman_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=337548164"