Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:02, 27 March 2015

Ed Giecek

Ed Giecek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notability banner has been present for five years. Article sources mainly primary, subject appears to fail WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; only one is allowed. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. NORTH AMERICA 03:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Keep, his work is exhibited in the Frye Art Museum. Despite the lack of other sources, which I suspect would be found if actually searched for, this indicates notability in and of itself. Museums don't display works by non-notable artists. Skyerise (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Notability for Misplaced Pages purposes isn't established based on whether or not museums display their work. Have you read WP:GNG, Skyerise? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - responders should note that WV (Winkelvi) is gutting the article, removing what in my opinion are reliable sources, to ensure deletion of the article. This is bad form. Those who respond to the AfD should be relied upon to look into the references and decide for themselves how reliable they are. Skyerise (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Bullshit. I've removed unreferenced content, moved links that weren't reliable references to the external links section, removed dead links, etc. It's all in the editing history and there is no "bad form" occurring. This is a nothing article about a non-notable subject, period. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

No, you've repeatedly undone my adding details to citations and formatting them with the {{cite}} template. You've also repeatedly removed the sentence noting an award, which is relevant to notability and supported by a reference: "Giecek's work Near Spring won first prize at the twenty-eight annual Puget Sound Area Exhibition at Seattle's Frye Art Museum." . The program cover is not "forged" and is supported by the work's inclusion Musuem catalogue. Sheesh! Skyerise (talk) 04:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Skyerise and Winkelvi, hopefully your battle at the article has ended. If it continues, and I see it, either or both of you may be blocked. @Winkelvi, a polite suggestion: leave the article alone, whether it has unsourced material or poorly sourced material in it. Editors who evaluate the notability of the subject can easily see what is sourced and what isn't and how. You're also free to comment here on the sources rather than deleting material from the article. The article is short; it's not that hard to go through. That said, @Skyerise, edit-warring is not justified, even if you think that what Winkelvi is doing is in "bad form". Now, why don't the two of you sit back, relax, and let other editors opine on whether the article should be kept or deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem to take your advice, Bbb23, and thank you for it being polite. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. It seems that this artist has, as a claim to notability, the following:
  1. One watercolor from 1986 displayed in a museum in Seattle.
  2. A membership card in an artists' group.

If that's all there is, I can't justify keeping it. Is there more that I missed? J♯m (talk | contribs) 06:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Weak delete: does not appear to meet the threshold for notability as an artist. Quis separabit? 12:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
• Userfy to allow the primary contributor (or keeper) to work on the article and bring it up to Misplaced Pages standards. If it can't be salvaged (or merged to another article) within six months, delete from user space. Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Which will be pretty much impossible to do, Viriditas. The article subject simply has nothing "out there" in form of secondary sources. Other than what's already in the article, there's nothing but primary. I've looked at his artwork online, read his bio. I like what he does artistically, and he looks like a great guy, but he's just not notable for Misplaced Pages purposes. As another editor pointed out above, the article subject has one watercolor from 1986 displayed in a museum in Seattle and a membership card in an artists' group. Truth is, there are a lot of great artists currently in the world, but relatively, only a handful of them are eligible according to our guidelines and policies on notability. The article subject doesn't fall into that handful. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

That could change. Many sources are not yet digitized, and can only be found in archival boxes collecting dust in remote physical locations. It's still difficult to find digital sources for many topics, such as regional artists. There may be reliable source coverage out there, but the editor will need to do some major research and dig around. Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Keep I agree with Skyerise. Notability is supported by the reference: "Giecek's work Near Spring won first prize at the twenty-eight annual Puget Sound Area Exhibition at Seattle's Frye Art Museum." . Seattle is a huge metropolitan area, and a first place there at the Puget Sound exhibition in and of itself denotes notability. WordSeventeen (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Fiction and the arts)
• AfD debates
• Relisted AfD debates