::::::::: I was pointing out that notability cannot be established by association with someone who is not notable himself. That resembles the explanatory notes at WP:NOTINHERITED, except that in this case, my objection is even stronger. Not only is "Gopher is notable, Kiandjan worked with Gopher, therefor Kiandjan is notable" an argument that should be avoided, but the argument that Kiandjan is notable because he worked with Gopher neither valid nor sound because one of the premises is false. Arguing that Gopher is notable doesn't makes any difference for this AfD, because even if it were true that Gopher is notable, we'd still reject the conclusion that Kiandjan is notable because consensus is that that kind of reasoning is not valid, regardless of the truth of the premises. The way to establish the notability of a subject is through independent, reliable sources. If they exist, I will revise my assessment to a keep, and I'm confident that all the other experienced editors here will do the same. [[User:Vexations|Vexations]] ([[User talk:Vexations|talk]]) 20:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
::::::::: I was pointing out that notability cannot be established by association with someone who is not notable himself. That resembles the explanatory notes at WP:NOTINHERITED, except that in this case, my objection is even stronger. Not only is "Gopher is notable, Kiandjan worked with Gopher, therefor Kiandjan is notable" an argument that should be avoided, but the argument that Kiandjan is notable because he worked with Gopher neither valid nor sound because one of the premises is false. Arguing that Gopher is notable doesn't makes any difference for this AfD, because even if it were true that Gopher is notable, we'd still reject the conclusion that Kiandjan is notable because consensus is that that kind of reasoning is not valid, regardless of the truth of the premises. The way to establish the notability of a subject is through independent, reliable sources. If they exist, I will revise my assessment to a keep, and I'm confident that all the other experienced editors here will do the same. [[User:Vexations|Vexations]] ([[User talk:Vexations|talk]]) 20:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::[[User:Vexations|Vexations]] Your hasty rejection of Gopher's notablity proves that you're easily rejecting too fast anyone's notability. The collaboration with Gopher isn't just "working with" but making a record art, and no rule prevents this argument from being a reliable source. Also, you can't fairly question Kiandjan's notability till you haven't reasonably refuted that :
::::::::::[[User:Vexations|Vexations]] Your hasty rejection of Gopher's notablity proves that you're easily rejecting too fast anyone's notability. The collaboration with Gopher isn't just "working with" but making a record art, and no rule prevents this argument from being a reliable source. Also, you can't fairly question Kiandjan's notability till you haven't reasonably refuted that :
**Artnet is a reliable source;
**Artnet is a reliable source;
**a featuring on Le Journal de la Maison's cover is at least as reliable as an article in Le Parisien, that [[User:Netherzone|Netherzone]] quoted as an exemple of reliable source.
**a featuring on Le Journal de la Maison's cover is at least as reliable as an article in Le Parisien, that [[User:Netherzone|Netherzone]] quoted as an exemple of reliable source.
[[User:Howareyoutheyus|Howareyoutheyus]] ([[User:Howareyoutheyus|talk]]) 00:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC+1)
[[User:Howareyoutheyus|Howareyoutheyus]] ([[User:Howareyoutheyus|talk]]) 00:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC+1)
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep - Artnet source does fit with WP:ARTIST 2-a rule. Howareyoutheyus (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC+1)
Collapse discussion of how notability works
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)[reply]
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 :
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Sorry to disappoint, but this is not an in-depth art-critical, art-historical article or review on Kiandjan. The article is about the apartment and the apartment designer. It discusses Xavier de St. Jean and Azimut Studio for interior decoration. It is not about Pierre Kianjidan. For example, “The owner wanted a kitchen dining room, a living room, two bedrooms with dressing room, a bathroom with separate toilet, a laundry room and a floor under the slope to create a guest room or office.” It then discusses construction and insulation materials used in the apartment. The only mention of Mr. Kiandjan is embedded in captions of two of seven photos: “Custom carpentry and standard cabinets make the most of the wall surface playing with the raster effect. Sofa "Facett", Ligne Roset. Paintings by Pierre Kiandjan including "Rouge Express" (left).” The other caption: “The bathroom combines black and blue. Color tiles and material at Ceramica Paris. Round mirror by Hay. Artwork of Pierre Kiandjan.” I think you may be misinterpreting the guidelines and policies for what constitutes notability. Netherzone (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone After having told that an article by Le Parisien can establish notability, you don't recognize the same about a featuring on another big French national magazine cover... That's not very logical. In addition, why don't you admit that Artnet is an official media about art market sales and then a reliable source ? Howareyoutheyus (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC+1)
Delete I see no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, nor does the subject meet any of the subject-specific notability criteria: not widely cited, no significant new concept/theory/technique, no major body of work, no exhibitions, no significant critical attention, no collections.
https://www.kaltblut-magazine.com/found-on-the-internet-pierre-kiandjan/ makes some a claim: he reinvents optic art, but unfortunately does not tell us how he does that. If Kiandjian had really reinvented optic art (I think they mean Op art?) then the art world would have taken notice and we'd see many more sources discussing his supposed innovation
Comment - Op Art was invented in the 1960's more than two early 20th c. many decades before this artist was born. Netherzone (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC) Addendum: The point I was trying to make is that there is no proof whatsoever that PK "reinvented" Op art in the 2010's. Netherzone (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Collapse yet another discussion of how notability works
Vexations A CD ? It's a collaboration with a French Touch legend... Howareyoutheyus (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC+1)
Howareyoutheyus, Sorry, an EP, not a CD. As for the collaboration with Alex Gopher, it does not affect Kiandjan's notability, although "legend" seems like an exaggeration, given the unconvincing sourcing of our article on Alex Gopher: wordpress.com, discodemons.net (dead), discogs.com and soundtrackinfo.com, none of which indicate that Gopher himself is notable. Vexations (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Vexations, your latest assertion is a bit confused because it has two possible meanings : either you're telling he's not notable then you couldn't be more wrong, or you're telling that his article only needs to be updated to reflect more his effective notability and then confirming that such a collaboration is a reliable source. (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC+1)
Howareyoutheyus respectfully, the discussion of Alex Gopher's notability should be taken to the talk page of Gopher's article. If I'm not mistaken, I think Vexations may have been making a point that WP:NOTINHERITED. An artist designing an EP cover for another artist does not establish notability; hundreds of thousands of artists have done so. Also, a friendly reminder to please remember to sign your posts using four tildes (~). Netherzone (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone By saying "none of which indicate that Gopher himself is notable", Vexations was obviously only - and wrongly - talking about Gopher notability, nothing else. Also, such a collaboration isn't displayed within WP:NOTINHERITED forbidden arguments. Howareyoutheyus (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC+1)
@Howareyoutheyus:, if you had bothered to read WP:RS and WP:N as suggested, we would not have to waste time explaining this to you over and over again. these policies explain why this artist is not notable. Independent, in depth sources do not exist. Every source you have brought up is just a trivial mention. Anyway, you have made your point. In a couple of days this will be deleted and we can all move on.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was pointing out that notability cannot be established by association with someone who is not notable himself. That resembles the explanatory notes at WP:NOTINHERITED, except that in this case, my objection is even stronger. Not only is "Gopher is notable, Kiandjan worked with Gopher, therefor Kiandjan is notable" an argument that should be avoided, but the argument that Kiandjan is notable because he worked with Gopher neither valid nor sound because one of the premises is false. Arguing that Gopher is notable doesn't makes any difference for this AfD, because even if it were true that Gopher is notable, we'd still reject the conclusion that Kiandjan is notable because consensus is that that kind of reasoning is not valid, regardless of the truth of the premises. The way to establish the notability of a subject is through independent, reliable sources. If they exist, I will revise my assessment to a keep, and I'm confident that all the other experienced editors here will do the same. Vexations (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations Your hasty rejection of Gopher's notablity proves that you're easily rejecting too fast anyone's notability. The collaboration with Gopher isn't just "working with" but making a record art, and no rule prevents this argument from being a reliable source. Also, you can't fairly question Kiandjan's notability till you haven't reasonably refuted that :
Artnet is a reliable source;
a featuring on Le Journal de la Maison's cover is at least as reliable as an article in Le Parisien, that Netherzone quoted as an exemple of reliable source.
