- Tyrome Tripoli (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Overturn The creator of the page was not informed of as to its nomination for deletion and further more evidence can be and is being provided as per the subject's notability Masterknighted (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You should list the evidence for notability here so people can review it. Also, for reference the information at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion states "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." As far as I am aware there is no other guidelines or policies stating that the page creator must be notified. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Sarah the Brooklyn Rail article which talks about his work critically discussed this article was dismissed in the deletion discussion but it from a reputable independent source[1]
Related notability updates not in original article
1. Coverage of his work at McNeil Gallery on ArtNet [2]
and again 2004 on artnet in 2004 [3]
2. Internationally exhibited - Italy [4]
3, Museum exhibition at the Bergen Museum of Art & Science (before the museum went online only during renovation) [5]
4. Notice of exhibition at Brooklyn Bridge Park on NYC Parks website [6]
5. Coverage of the artist in the Bushwick Daily [7]
I should at least get a chance to make my caseMasterknighted (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, notifying the original creator of a page is a courtesy but not an absolute requirement (remember, the original creator doesn't WP:OWN the page). Anyway, AFD result was unanimous and couldn't have been correctly closed any other way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Nothing cited above would meet WP:CREATIVE. (the ref (1) is a mere mention in an article about the studio in which he works.) Notifying the ed. is almost always done except when the ed. is apparently not in good faith, but it wouldn't have made any difference. No objection to trying to write an article in Draftspace. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are 2 museum exhibitiins
- endorse The additional sources do not change notability notices of exhibitions are primary sources and do not establish third party coverage. Artnet as an art industry website isn't a third party source. LibStar (talk) 00:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per Masterknighted's reasonable protest. Relist, notify the creator, and leave open for at least 168 hours.
- Notifying the creator is more than a courtesy, but even as just a courtesy, the discussion was discourteous, and there is little cost to rectifying that with a seven day relist. Notifying the nominator is not an absolute requirement, no, it is not required for trolls, banned users, etc. Is that being alleged?
- Discussion was unanimous? Asserting unanimity for poorly attended discussions is unacceptably disingenuous.
- No criticism of the closer. No one alerted the fact that notifications were not made, as the discussion as it stood looks like a clear case was made for deletion.
- Advise the AfD nominator to please always notify the article creator, barring good reason not to (as above). It really isn't hard, if you enable Wikipedia:Twinkle and this very nice tool for deletion nominations, creator notification will be done by default.
- Masterknighted makes a strong prima facie case that there is room for further discussion, and that discussion belongs at AfD not DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Artnet has a magazne in which these articles appeared which in fact was the first major online art magazine and set tbe standard in the genre the website is not exactly in the same form as it was at the time these articles were published Masterknighted (talk) 02:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse- There is no way this discussion could have been closed differently. Reyk YO! 07:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- To start a stealth AFD is understandable when a new editor does it by mistake, but I take a dim view of it from a Wikipedian as experienced as Libstar. The AfD was hardly well-attended; let's not pretend this was a strong and unassailable consensus to delete. Relist and do it properly.—S Marshall T/C 07:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- relist I'm assuming this was a tool error and Libstar intented to notify the creator and it just didn't happen. The creator makes a reasonable case here, so should get a chance to make that case at AfD. Hobit (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, but relist, or draftify. The close was reasonable given the existing discussion. But, yeah, if the article's creator didn't get notified, that's kind of wrong. I'm not optimistic the final result will be any different, but they do deserve a chance to make their argument. There's very little downside here. At worst, we spend another week talking about the article and end up in the same place. The encyclopedia will survive that. Alternatively, restoring to draft space pending the addition of better sources would be good too, and perhaps even preferable to an immediate re-run of the AfD, since without better sourcing, it's unlikely to have any different outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per DGG above. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Work commissioned for CalTrans instillation commissioned piece for major public agency - [8]
There is enough stuff of which wiki articles are made here to establish notability he is a well exhibited artist who is written about... This editor was blind-sighted. This is not the way to operate. A case cannot be heard in court without even a public defender that is no contest but the accused or litigated against would at least be informed of the charges, this is not the rule of lawMasterknighted (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Masterknighted this is not a court and no charges have been brought against you. If an article you have created is found to be not notable and is deleted, it is nothing personal against you. Articles for Deletion is primarily about the article subject, the creator or main contributors are only ever brought up if there is a clear conflict of interest or maybe if the editor has since been blocked for some reason, which is not the case here. In the interest of fairness I agree that the article creator should be notified, I know I would want to be if it was me. However the creator doesn't own the article and I don't think they should have any special right above other editors to have their argument heard, nor should that argument hold any more weight. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes comparison to a court is far fetched. Trying to plead for special treatment as article creator as Sarah says has no basis. The basis of a deletion review is if the afd closure does not accurately reflect actual discussion. LibStar (talk) 09:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - that argument more actually reflects the initial non disclosure which is indeed made up for by having this vital discussion here , but, that said the previous argument just reinforces my argument here... The trial reference might be better stated as any contested issue it is just a matter of of jurisprudence for any proceeding.Masterknighted (talk) 09:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia does not operate like a court of law or necessarily jurisprudence applies. Read WP:NOTLAW. trying to say you're like operating in a court doesn't work here. LibStar (talk) 10:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it is the rule by which any forum operates in the sense of fair discourseMasterknighted (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How can you improve an article which is currently deleted?Masterknighted (talk) 02:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
