Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pierre Kiandjan: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Netherzone (talk | contribs) →Pierre Kiandjan: comment to article creator |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
:::::::[[User:ThatMontrealIP|ThatMontrealIP]] Please be fair and mention the right source which is [http://www.artnet.com/artists/pierre-kiandjan/ the artist page], not [http://www.artnet.com/artists/pierre-kiandjan/dusty-maths-o9kwAaYEiv1Ax3Q3__O9Ng2 the piece's]. And as you may know, some promintent artists including Pierre Kiandjan are rated on art market because their work is well-known by collectors and experts. Then those rated arists are recommanded to Artnet by art market professionnals so that Artnet add them within its database. You're arguing there's one piece published, but is a 150 words article on Wikipedia less important than à 1 000 000 words article ? I don't think so. As it is on Artnet. While I've given to you enough reliable arguments regarding WP:ARTIST and WP:RS criteria, you're still persisting with your initial point of view and have kept for hours seeking "basic details" that could rule in your favour, I'm not sure such an insincere behavior fits with moderators tasks. [[User:Howareyoutheyus|Howareyoutheyus]] ([[User:Howareyoutheyus|talk]]) 15:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC+1) |
:::::::[[User:ThatMontrealIP|ThatMontrealIP]] Please be fair and mention the right source which is [http://www.artnet.com/artists/pierre-kiandjan/ the artist page], not [http://www.artnet.com/artists/pierre-kiandjan/dusty-maths-o9kwAaYEiv1Ax3Q3__O9Ng2 the piece's]. And as you may know, some promintent artists including Pierre Kiandjan are rated on art market because their work is well-known by collectors and experts. Then those rated arists are recommanded to Artnet by art market professionnals so that Artnet add them within its database. You're arguing there's one piece published, but is a 150 words article on Wikipedia less important than à 1 000 000 words article ? I don't think so. As it is on Artnet. While I've given to you enough reliable arguments regarding WP:ARTIST and WP:RS criteria, you're still persisting with your initial point of view and have kept for hours seeking "basic details" that could rule in your favour, I'm not sure such an insincere behavior fits with moderators tasks. [[User:Howareyoutheyus|Howareyoutheyus]] ([[User:Howareyoutheyus|talk]]) 15:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC+1) |
||
::::::::[[User:Howareyoutheyus|Howareyoutheyus]] You may be misunderstanding the policies and guidelines, I hope this helps to clarify. Artnet is a paid subscription database directory that tracks auction sales, it is not a reliable source for the importance of an artist. It does not matter whatsoever if one of his lithographs sold for $1,800 at an auction; that does not establish notability. An in-depth article or review in the New York Times or Le Monde or Le Parisien is a reliable source that can count towards notability. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of artists sell work, and exhibit work, and have mentions in publications. Not all of these very ordinary occurrences are important enough to establish notability. If an artist simply has a mention in a publication, rather than an in-depth article or review written from an art-critical or art historical perspective, it is not considered important enough to establish notability. Listings and blogs are often something clipped from a press release, they are not in-depth coverage. They are simply informing the public of an event. If an artist shows at non-notable galleries, or, in the case of Pierre Kiandjan, in furniture and design stores, that is not the same as showing at the Museum of Modern Art or another notable museum. Whether it is a one-person show or a group show is also taken into consideration, as is whether that artist is in the permanent collections of important notable museums - and these need to be backed-up by references. You claim that Mr. Kiandjan's fame is indicated by being "featured" on the cover of a magazine - this, with all due respect, is untrue. The magazine cover is for apartment design, and there happens to be a small work of his leaning on a desk; there is no mention of Mr. Kiandjan - he is not the feature of the magazine cover. [[User:Netherzone|Netherzone]] ([[User talk:Netherzone|talk]]) 14:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC) |
::::::::[[User:Howareyoutheyus|Howareyoutheyus]] You may be misunderstanding the policies and guidelines, I hope this helps to clarify. Artnet is a paid subscription database directory that tracks auction sales, it is not a reliable source for the importance of an artist. It does not matter whatsoever if one of his lithographs sold for $1,800 at an auction; that does not establish notability. An in-depth article or review in the New York Times or Le Monde or Le Parisien is a reliable source that can count towards notability. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of artists sell work, and exhibit work, and have mentions in publications. Not all of these very ordinary occurrences are important enough to establish notability. If an artist simply has a mention in a publication, rather than an in-depth article or review written from an art-critical or art historical perspective, it is not considered important enough to establish notability. Listings and blogs are often something clipped from a press release, they are not in-depth coverage. They are simply informing the public of an event. If an artist shows at non-notable galleries, or, in the case of Pierre Kiandjan, in furniture and design stores, that is not the same as showing at the Museum of Modern Art or another notable museum. Whether it is a one-person show or a group show is also taken into consideration, as is whether that artist is in the permanent collections of important notable museums - and these need to be backed-up by references. You claim that Mr. Kiandjan's fame is indicated by being "featured" on the cover of a magazine - this, with all due respect, is untrue. The magazine cover is for apartment design, and there happens to be a small work of his leaning on a desk; there is no mention of Mr. Kiandjan - he is not the feature of the magazine cover. [[User:Netherzone|Netherzone]] ([[User talk:Netherzone|talk]]) 14:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::[[User:Netherzone|Netherzone]] First you're wrong because Pierre Kiandjan is mentionned by [https://www.lejournaldelamaison.fr/le-journal-de-la-maison/reportages-maisons/appartements/122985-122985.html#item=1 Le Journal de la maison], unless you didn't want to see that mention. You've done another big mistake : be careful not to mix artists just selling art you're talking about and known artists on the art market, they're absolutely not the same. Artnet is a notable artists database, however you agree or not. Moreover your speech about in-depth articles is paradoxical : an article in Le Parisien - in-depth or not - is less reliable to establish notability than belonging to Artnet database. [[User:Howareyoutheyus|Howareyoutheyus]] ([[User:Howareyoutheyus|talk]]) 17:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC+1) |
|||
Revision as of 15:22, 11 October 2019
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Pierre Kiandjan (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)
I have searched in English And French and can find no solid in-depth coverage that is not a blog, interview, online portfolio or advertisement for an event. The current article sources are the same. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - The subject of this article does not pass WP:ARTIST nor WP:GNG nor WP:BIO notability criteria. There is nothing remarkable or significant enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry. The referencing is from auction houses, blogs, online-portfolios, interviews, listings and other primary or promotional sources. After searching online, I found nothing of substance. Netherzone (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - Artnet source does fit with WP:ARTIST 2-a rule. Howareyoutheyus (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC+1)
- Aside from the fact that the ARTNET reference is just an auction result page with no independent reporting... WP:ARTIST 2A says "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." Just inventing something does not count: there has to be extensive independent recognition by others that it is significant. If 2A were true there would be lots of writing about the new concepts, theories or techniques, and there is not. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- First, Artnet is the most prominent rated artists database for collectors, it's not "just an auction result page" at all. Secondly, how could you say his work isn't "originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique" ? It obviously is. That's why :
- - his lithographs are worth 1800 € on the art market ;
- - Le Journal de la Maison has featured his work on cover ;
- - Monopol Magazin has talked about him.
- Howareyoutheyus (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC+1)
- That's you drawing a conclusion about how notable he is based on several trivial mentions. We do not give value to any of those things for notability. If several art critics or reviewers or museums say he is notable, we conclude he is notable; we do not actually do it ourself. Notability is mostly about counting sources. Please read WP:RS.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- ThatMontrealIP It's not my conclusion at all, it's WP:ARTIST 2A rule's conclusion. Indeed, you'll figure out that any artist featured on Artnet is obviously "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique" when you know what that database consists in. Also, the sources are reliable according to WP:RS. Howareyoutheyus (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC+1)
- Are we talking about the same Artnet source? All I see is a one page auction result that gives very basic details and says "Subscribe now to view details for this work, and gain access to over 10 million auction results." We do not put any value on that here. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- ThatMontrealIP Please be fair and mention the right source which is the artist page, not the piece's. And as you may know, some promintent artists including Pierre Kiandjan are rated on art market because their work is well-known by collectors and experts. Then those rated arists are recommanded to Artnet by art market professionnals so that Artnet add them within its database. You're arguing there's one piece published, but is a 150 words article on Wikipedia less important than à 1 000 000 words article ? I don't think so. As it is on Artnet. While I've given to you enough reliable arguments regarding WP:ARTIST and WP:RS criteria, you're still persisting with your initial point of view and have kept for hours seeking "basic details" that could rule in your favour, I'm not sure such an insincere behavior fits with moderators tasks. Howareyoutheyus (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC+1)
- Howareyoutheyus You may be misunderstanding the policies and guidelines, I hope this helps to clarify. Artnet is a paid subscription database directory that tracks auction sales, it is not a reliable source for the importance of an artist. It does not matter whatsoever if one of his lithographs sold for $1,800 at an auction; that does not establish notability. An in-depth article or review in the New York Times or Le Monde or Le Parisien is a reliable source that can count towards notability. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of artists sell work, and exhibit work, and have mentions in publications. Not all of these very ordinary occurrences are important enough to establish notability. If an artist simply has a mention in a publication, rather than an in-depth article or review written from an art-critical or art historical perspective, it is not considered important enough to establish notability. Listings and blogs are often something clipped from a press release, they are not in-depth coverage. They are simply informing the public of an event. If an artist shows at non-notable galleries, or, in the case of Pierre Kiandjan, in furniture and design stores, that is not the same as showing at the Museum of Modern Art or another notable museum. Whether it is a one-person show or a group show is also taken into consideration, as is whether that artist is in the permanent collections of important notable museums - and these need to be backed-up by references. You claim that Mr. Kiandjan's fame is indicated by being "featured" on the cover of a magazine - this, with all due respect, is untrue. The magazine cover is for apartment design, and there happens to be a small work of his leaning on a desk; there is no mention of Mr. Kiandjan - he is not the feature of the magazine cover. Netherzone (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Netherzone First you're wrong because Pierre Kiandjan is mentionned by Le Journal de la maison, unless you didn't want to see that mention. You've done another big mistake : be careful not to mix artists just selling art you're talking about and known artists on the art market, they're absolutely not the same. Artnet is a notable artists database, however you agree or not. Moreover your speech about in-depth articles is paradoxical : an article in Le Parisien - in-depth or not - is less reliable to establish notability than belonging to Artnet database. Howareyoutheyus (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC+1)
- Howareyoutheyus You may be misunderstanding the policies and guidelines, I hope this helps to clarify. Artnet is a paid subscription database directory that tracks auction sales, it is not a reliable source for the importance of an artist. It does not matter whatsoever if one of his lithographs sold for $1,800 at an auction; that does not establish notability. An in-depth article or review in the New York Times or Le Monde or Le Parisien is a reliable source that can count towards notability. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of artists sell work, and exhibit work, and have mentions in publications. Not all of these very ordinary occurrences are important enough to establish notability. If an artist simply has a mention in a publication, rather than an in-depth article or review written from an art-critical or art historical perspective, it is not considered important enough to establish notability. Listings and blogs are often something clipped from a press release, they are not in-depth coverage. They are simply informing the public of an event. If an artist shows at non-notable galleries, or, in the case of Pierre Kiandjan, in furniture and design stores, that is not the same as showing at the Museum of Modern Art or another notable museum. Whether it is a one-person show or a group show is also taken into consideration, as is whether that artist is in the permanent collections of important notable museums - and these need to be backed-up by references. You claim that Mr. Kiandjan's fame is indicated by being "featured" on the cover of a magazine - this, with all due respect, is untrue. The magazine cover is for apartment design, and there happens to be a small work of his leaning on a desk; there is no mention of Mr. Kiandjan - he is not the feature of the magazine cover. Netherzone (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- ThatMontrealIP Please be fair and mention the right source which is the artist page, not the piece's. And as you may know, some promintent artists including Pierre Kiandjan are rated on art market because their work is well-known by collectors and experts. Then those rated arists are recommanded to Artnet by art market professionnals so that Artnet add them within its database. You're arguing there's one piece published, but is a 150 words article on Wikipedia less important than à 1 000 000 words article ? I don't think so. As it is on Artnet. While I've given to you enough reliable arguments regarding WP:ARTIST and WP:RS criteria, you're still persisting with your initial point of view and have kept for hours seeking "basic details" that could rule in your favour, I'm not sure such an insincere behavior fits with moderators tasks. Howareyoutheyus (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC+1)
- Are we talking about the same Artnet source? All I see is a one page auction result that gives very basic details and says "Subscribe now to view details for this work, and gain access to over 10 million auction results." We do not put any value on that here. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- ThatMontrealIP It's not my conclusion at all, it's WP:ARTIST 2A rule's conclusion. Indeed, you'll figure out that any artist featured on Artnet is obviously "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique" when you know what that database consists in. Also, the sources are reliable according to WP:RS. Howareyoutheyus (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC+1)
- That's you drawing a conclusion about how notable he is based on several trivial mentions. We do not give value to any of those things for notability. If several art critics or reviewers or museums say he is notable, we conclude he is notable; we do not actually do it ourself. Notability is mostly about counting sources. Please read WP:RS.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- First, Artnet is the most prominent rated artists database for collectors, it's not "just an auction result page" at all. Secondly, how could you say his work isn't "originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique" ? It obviously is. That's why :
- Aside from the fact that the ARTNET reference is just an auction result page with no independent reporting... WP:ARTIST 2A says "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." Just inventing something does not count: there has to be extensive independent recognition by others that it is significant. If 2A were true there would be lots of writing about the new concepts, theories or techniques, and there is not. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
