Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kongthin Pearlmich

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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kongthin Pearlmich

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

The subject of this article has not been verifiably demonstrated to exist, nor to create or sell any artworks—ever. The only sources relate to a late-2008 episode where—through a representative at a non-existent law firm—the subject is claimed to have offered a painting—that by his own estimation was hugely valuable—to a cathedral. Fails BLP1E and V. ^Bongo_matic 00:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Moreover, speculation that he may have substantial and noted sales of his works in the future is simply WP:CRYSTAL ball-gazing. ^Bongo_matic 13:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Even were he demonstrated to exist, there is insufficient coverage to establish notability per guidelines. If the episode constitutes a hoax, it is not a notable hoax. ^Bongo_matic 03:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to notable for one event, which means WP:BLP1E applies, so delete ~DC _{Talk To Me} 10:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No source has been provided by the nominee to substantiate the allegation that it is a 'hoax'. The article references a Telegraph article amongst others, generally a good source. The fact is that publicity shy artists exist, but that doesn't mean they are non-noteworthy. The fact that he was first reported about in connection with one big event, is neither here nor there. The article mentions his body of work. A look at his (admittedly eccentric) website shows a large body of work (presumably owned by private collectors - something which again doesn't mean he is not notable). Malick78 (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and WP:BLP1E specifically says: "if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them". There is no reason to think he is likely to remain low-profile. He has, as I said, a large body of work and sells for high prices. Malick78 (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

any evidence for that last statement? DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Ty 10:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The artist has had work displayed in two historic venues, and has gained national media attention for this, as well as the unusual, not to mention questionable, circumstances in evidence. As there is a substantial body of work displayed on the artist's web site, there is every likelihood that there will be further exposure for it, i.e. the person is quite probably not "likely to remain, a low-profile individual." BLP1E was conceived for when an otherwise unknown member of the public became caught up in an unusual occurrence, not when a person gained attention intentionally with regard to their profession. WP:BAND allows an artist who "has had a single or album on any country's national music chart" or who "has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network." WP:ATHLETE allows those "who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport." The article is fully compliant with core wikipedia policies of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. It certainly does not fail the latter, as the sources are highly reputable. Ty 07:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The addition to the nom statement, "Moreover, speculation that he may have substantial and noted sales of his works in the future is simply WP:CRYSTAL ball-gazing" is irrelevant: no one has made that argument. Ty 14:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be accurate, WP:BLP1E specifically invites predictions regarding the future: "if that person [...] is likely to remain...". :) Malick78 (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The question is not whether this might be a hoax--the question is whether this is a notable hoax. Given that it has been 16 months since the Telegraph article, and the only other major new source reporting is a a short bbc piece that essentially reports that the Telegraph published an article, I would say it very definitely has not succeeded in being notable. When the question is whether something is widely known, the absence of evidence is certainly evidence. Where most web sources that mention it point for their information is, not surprisingly, Wikipedia. Not even the forum on his website has any postings; for some of the Google sites I checked I was the 3rd visitor , so perhaps the other 2 also came there because of this discussion. We have been part of the attempt at a hoax--and even with the publicity appearance here has given it, it still has not become notable. As one positive outcome, I'm glad to see many of the web comments that mention us in this connection, recognize that being here does not make a story reliable. DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact is that the Telegraph was happy that an expensive exhibit (large chunks of marble...) was made by somebody called Pearlmich. The BBC article questioning his existence came to no conclusions. The Telegraph would therefore seem to be the better source since it actually takes a stance on the issue. As for the website, there are many photos of artworks: these should be assumed to be by Pearlmich because if they were by someone else, that other person would have asked for an injunction to take the site down due to copyright violations. This has not occurred so let us assume that these are by the artist claiming them. It's therefore a substantial body of work, showing the existence of an artist deserving of an article. Hopefully of course more info will appear in due course regarding him, but conclusive evidence of your 'hoax' is completely lacking. It's just insinuation. If it's a hoax, why would no one have owned up after all this time? A hoax is therefore more unlikely. Malick78 (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - As DGG correctly points out, whether or not it is a "hoax" is irrelevant, so his later remark "We have been part of the attempt at a hoax" is by his own words irrelevant, as well as unproven. The article on wikipedia is reliable and correctly states the known facts. It's certainly not a hoax that these works were exhibited in a world-renowned venue and achieved national media coverage for that and for the mysterious circumstances surrounding the artist, including the question of whether or not this was some form of scam—something either implied in the coverage or asked outright. The article follows wikipedia policy of NPOV in reflecting this coverage. The only question then is whether this incident should be preserved in wikipedia, the encyclopedia with the intent to contain "the sum of all human knowledge". Bearing in mind the status of the venues whose exhibition of the sculpture was what led to the wider coverage, I believe it is a benefit to wikipedia to retain this information, so that it remains accessible as a summary of the incident for anyone in the future who wishes to find out about it—or about this incident in the history of King's College Chapel, Cambridge or Canterbury Cathedral. Just for the latter aspect, the information should be retained. It relates not just to Pearlmich, but also to those institutions. The current form of the article is simply the most convenient way of retaining the material. What has already occurred has ensured notability: a google search for "canterbury cathedral sculpture"[1] brings the Daily Telegraph article up as the first result, and the fifth result is the story reported in the Hindustan Times,[2] as it received international coverage, syndicated by Asian News International. A musician only has to get a single in the bottom of a national chart for a week to meet WP:BAND. This situation is analagous to that, and to set a higher bar is simply to discriminate against the fine arts in favour of pop culture. Ty 03:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sum of human knowledge ≠ the sum of human ignorance. I agree Wikipedia coould cover it--there can be a sentence in the article on the Chapel, saying "From 16 Sept 2008 to 18 Sept, 2008, a 15 ft high triptych of Christ was displayed in the Chapel, said to be the work of an otherwise unknown artist named Kongthin Pearlmich; it was offered to Canterbury Cathedral, but they declined to accept it . " sourced to the Telegraph & the Church Times. I agree it was an event worth noting in the history of the Chapel. My colleague above offers the opinion this is discriminating against the fine arts but apparently nobody in the art world seems to have commented on it. If they have, we would have evidence for an article on the sculpture. We cannot have an article on the person as there is no RS reporting he existed. I have supported consistently articles on artists and art works that can be shown to be both real and notable. DGG ( talk ) 21:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My remarks were not intended personally but generally. As you say it is worth noting in the history of the chapel, then that is an argument for merge (relevant info) and, consequently redirect, not delete all the material from wiki. The RS's used for the article verify the existence of Kongthin Pearlmich (though that may well be a pseudonym) as someone had to make the sculpture and that is the name supplied to go with it. What the RS's also verify is that there is not anything else that can be confirmed about him, which is the whole point of the story, just as the lack of any information about the missing crew of the Mary Celeste is the whole point of that story. Artworld comment is not necessary, simply coverage in RS. Ty 13:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DGG's shortened version is all we can verify. It's not the King's College Chapel exhibition I have trouble with it's all the other stuff - millionaire reclusive artist etc. The original exhibition seems to have received no press coverage.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RS's verify that millionaire reclusive etc was claimed for this person and RS's verify that none of this is confirmed and no one has ever heard of him. That is in the article, as is the source for the info on the original exhibition. Ty 13:40, 19 January 2010 (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.