Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Cray

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Keep. Michig (talk) 08:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Cray

[edit]
Fred Cray (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)

My searches simply found nothing actually convincingly better and this can also be said for the current article. Notifying DGG who would be locally interested and frequently comments at these subject AfDs. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Saatchi Art website casts its net very wide and does not imply notability per se. Johnbod (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, ANYONE can create a profile on the saatchi website. Having a profile there does not imply that your work is in the collection of the Saatchi Gallery. That doesn't mean Cray isn't notable, he may well be, but based on the references as they are now he isn't. It should be easy to find better sources. Mduvekot (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switch to Keep As the article stands now he is not demonstrated to be notable. Merely having work exhibited is not an indication of notability unless someone actually writes about it. As it is, the sourcing for the article demonstrates who he is and what he does but does not demonstrate he is notable because of it. From a brief check it appears there *should* be better reliable secondary sources out there, but they are not in the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Only in death: As per WP:CREATIVE, this artists works are included in the collections of, at least, 15 major entities[2], including: Museum of the City of New York, New Orleans Museum of Art, New York Public Library and the Pfizer Collection. He has, also, been critically reviewed by the New York Times[3]. Can you please expound on your reasoning as to why he isn't notable please? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will repeat my first sentence: "As the article stands now he is not demonstrated to be notable." There is nothing preventing you from adding reliable sources to the article as an AFD goes on in order to improve its chances - this can result in people changing their votes and/or a keep decision. I will note however that primary sources do not demonstrate notability. In this case Fred Cray's website is not actually a reliable source for where his work is included in other galleries collections - either the gallery itself or a secondary source would be needed to verify that. The NYT review is a good source and should be added to the article, but it by itself is not enough (for me) to demonstrate notability. Another one or two along those lines would be enough (for me) to switch to keep. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Only in death: Then my respectful question to you would be, why did you vote to delete this article instead of improving it as I'm in the process of doing? After all, isn't that what we're supposed to do when we find an article like this? And as to your "primary source" comment (do notable artists like this really lie on their CV's?), I just included it in this discussion as a reference, but in the article lead rewrite I used this one[4]. So, am I missing something here? Just wondering. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 11:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because in general its not other people's job to do the legwork. As for the ISENY link, it appears to be just listing his resume from his website. On an individual basis I would not class that as a reliable source absent further corroboration. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Only in death: So let me understand this, a Japanese 501c-3 non-profit organization[5][6] that's been around for 20 years[7] and in 2015 received a commendation[8] from Japan's Consul General isn't a reliable source for you? Hummm. And as to your comment that "its not other people's job to do the legwork" as it pertains to improving WP articles I'll reply to you (maybe) later after these very confusing words make sense to me. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not when they appear to have copied his resume directly from his own website in a section titled 'Resume' with a link to his website at the bottom, no. Its quite simple, if you can find multiple reliable secondary sources that demonstrate his notability (along the lines of the NYT piece) then its an easy keep. Absent that, its a judgement call. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Only in death: Well, here's my "judgment" then if this is the criteria you're looking for: There is absolutely no way on Gods-green-earth that any notable artist such as this would EVER lie about their works. Also, there is no way any Japanese institution of any kind would EVER allow their name to be associated with an artist who lies. Your confusion appears to lie in the FACT that they both say the same thing, which is completely understandable when viewed in the light that they are both telling the truth. So, and if, you can prove (by using reliable sources of course) that either of them are lying, or have ever lied, about anything, then logic assumes both are truthful. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 12:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's sourcing requirements are that 'facts' are reliably sourced and verifiable. This is a *basic* tenet of wikipedia editing. It is not 'well prove it isnt'. The reason for this is that otherwise Wikipedia would be full of ridiculous unprovable either way info masquerading as facts. Also you have a misunderstanding of logic. 'X cannot be proven to be false, therefore X is true' is not logic. Its belief. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Switched to Keep as article has been updated with more reliable references. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Based on publications, exhibitions, and references. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – As above mentioned, the notability just isn't there. There is not enough evidence to support his notability. If all artists that have their work published in a gallery have a Wikipedia page, then this site will become more of a Facebook. Needs to be deleted. NikolaiHo 21:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Hi @Nikolaiho: As WP policy for creative professionals states that notability is established by the artists works being "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums", and this artist is represented in 15 of them, would you be so kind as to explain for everyone what WP policy you're using to vote for deletion please? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Picomtn:Granted, the fact you brought up has been fulfilled. Without quibbling about trivialities though, this artist hasn't demonstrated any of the other criteria:
  1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
  2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
  3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
  4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition.

Though technically, this subject has fulfilled the last requirement, he seems not to have demonstrated any other fulfillment. I guess it is subjective but in my judgement, he hasn't gained sufficient evidence of any other accomplishments to have an article. To me, he seems like one out of a gazillion other artists whose work is on display. NikolaiHo 04:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nikolaiho: You are right that this artist "has fulfilled the last requirement" of WP policy for creative professionals, but what you don't appear to understand is that's all he, or any artist, has to meet. You seem to mistakenly believe that an artist must meet every criteria, this isn't so, they only have to meet one to be considered notable, and this one does. Please note too that this isn't a subjective interpretation of this policy by me, but an exact one explained to me by @DGG: (whose is one of WP's top experts on artists). Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 08:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Picomtn: Hello again. I do understand that that is all the artist must fulfill and I have expressed that before. That is why I said this is subjective matter and I am here stating my opinion about him. The guidelines are not like a strict rulebook, judgement has to be made by each editor and it is their opinion whether the subject is notable or not using WP policy for creative professionals as a reference when deciding. So once again, yes, he has fulfilled one requirement and that's great, but none of his artwork is a great attraction. In fact, many of them are simply in the museum's collection and are not on display. I know his work is part of a collection and I do understand that he meets one requirement. But that is all, and I don't think this subject is going to get any more attention than he currently has. The fact that this man's work is safe to say, not a popular subject and never will be, is enough reason to nominate him for deletion. Also, if you reply, can you please post a reference to all of his artwork which are "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums". NikolaiHo 21:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi @Nikolaiho: You are entirely correct that WP guidelines are "not like a strict rulebook" and that editor subjectivity is, most certainly, allowed, as in any crowdsourcing project like WP, where anybody can make the rules. However, in making/changing these rules the WP consensus process should be followed. So, and yes, you are entirely free to hold this articles subject to a WP standard that doesn't exist, but I believe your argument would be sounder if you could articulate it better. For instance, this articles subject currently meets all WP notability criteria for creative professionals (this is an objective fact), so can you please expound on your reasoning's for coming to an opposite opinion? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nikolaiho I had already added a reference for the brooklyn museum. Please refrain from requesting evidence that has already been provided to you. As for your contention that this man's work is safe to say, not a popular subject and never will be, the mere fact that its subject is obscure does not under any circumstances mean it should be deleted. Mduvekot (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Mduvekot:! First of all, I am extremely sorry for requesting evidence even though you already provided a very ambiguous page showcasing his artwork which in in the storage of some museum. I see this unknown man happens to fulfill a single requirement which some people made up to help users best decide whether an article is notable enough. Indeed Wikipedia needs to have a webpage of this man, because this professional encyclopedia must record the tale of some unknown man who has done next to nothing. Other people who have made great contributions to the world have had their articles deleted but this American multimedia artist needs to be recognized for his "lush, gaudy and ethereal Technicolor spirit photographs whose works are now contained in the collections of many major art institutions, including the Brooklyn Museum, the Center for Photography at Woodstock, New York Public Library and the George Eastman Museum"(no period?) Well I must admit, this man must be recognized in the world for his artistic works so my verdict on this page is no other than a keep! NikolaiHo 00:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi @Nikolaiho: You need not ever apologize here (or anywhere on WP for that matter) for requesting evidence, that's what's expected of all of us. The changing of your delete vote to keep, though, is, at least to me, perplexing as I, for one, was listening to your argument, but wanting it to be more substantive and articulate. Yes, too, your frustration is evident, but need not be as the only changes ever made here are initiated by people, just like you, and nothing ever really disappears here, remember that. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Picomtn:Well hi again. I just got a bit emotional because that guy up there responded in a very harsh tone and I think he's a bit of a meanie. After all, the existence of this article has zero effect on me as once this discussion is over, I will forget about it and never remember the man again. It's just that I think it's quite unfair that I've seen other very worthy articles being deleted but see this one with nothing substantial being preserved and defended by so many. I also want everything here to remain and it is great that nothing ever really disappears here. From now on, I'll just let the admin do the deciding as I have said all that I have wanted to be heard. It seems like the keeps are winning currently and I have done my part against them. So have a nice day and say "hi" to me on my talkpage. NikolaiHo 02:47, 13 May 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fred_Cray&oldid=1137859278"