Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Tim Helmuth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An "internationally renowned" clay artist with one google hit. Google test indicates he is not notable. Thue | talk 19:10, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, irrelevant. -- Solitude 21:00, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, Tim Helmuth's work is known by an estimated thousand or so people spread across North America and Europe. Unfortunately, due to his unorthadox methods of making himself known, the Google Test doesn't really work here. (In my opinion, that makes it even more essential that he be included.) While he certainly isn't the most popular person in Wikipedia, and while most of the people voting here may not have heard of him, that does in no way invalidate his contribution to art. -- anon 18:45, 15 Jul 2004
- Delete, unless evidence of his "international renown" is supplied. NO hits in Google Groups. It is very unlikely that someone could be "internationally renowned" without anyone ever mentioning him on USENET. Just because he is reclusive would not mean that all of his patrons, critics, etc. would be reclusive. If he is internationally renowned, how about providing some citations of writeups about him in the art press? Dpbsmith 00:48, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Abstain until the days are up.I agree with Dpbsmith that some testimony needs to be provided in the article. If the supporter of the article could supply any indications, I'd vote keep. Surely there have been awards, magazine profiles, retrospectives or shows at museums. I fully agree that the Google test fails in a lot of art, but please, Mr. Author, do give us something. I mean that sincerely. Geogre 00:51, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)- Just for the record, whatever the case for Tim Helmuth is, it is really easy for an internationally known sculptor to fail a Google test. Even notable painters and film makers can fail. James Herbert is actually famous, for example. In the welter of other James's, Google will give you little. Aha. Search Jim. This is a guy who's very active, very in the spotlight, and you can find him by "Jim." We need to be really slow about Google testing artists. Geogre 13:28, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: spam makes all the difference. Geogre 14:43, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity pages annoy me. Ambivalenthysteria 01:49, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Ditto. My user page even says so. Vanity writers, beware my wrath! - Lucky 6.9 00:59, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. If he's such a recluse, why is he spamming himself all over our community? NOTE: if someone provides hard evidence of his credentials, I will recant my vote and acompanying snarkiness. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:19, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. No evidence that he even exists. Has a blog post [1] urging people to spam VfD with "keep" votes.-- Cyrius|✎ 02:50, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. If he's so famous that fame has forced him to be a recluse -snicker- then surely there must be a mention of him on the web site of a dealer or gallery or museum or art magazine. Gamaliel 22:03, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Abstain. I'm disgusted at how eager everyone is to assume I had anything to do with this, the very post itself mentions that I'm internationally renowned-although that is definitely an exaggeration. Isn't it be obvious that a enamored fan created and is defending this entry? Most of my work is sold through private communications with interested buyers, so very little press is created, hence the failure on the google test. With that said, I care very little about a fate of a two sentence entry. Do what you will. -- Tim Helmuth 02:17, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I am the one who wrote the article and the slingsdojo blog post (made in obvious jest as the site is popular and nobody has "spammed" this page), and there's really nothing I can say here in defense of the Tim Helmuth article that Tim hasn't already. It appears that Wikipedia is not yet advanced enough to mention unconventionally notable people. So be it. -- anon 9:20, 21 Jul 2004
- Which is more likely? That we dislike poorly written and laughably ridiculous two sentence articles with no supporting evidence, or that we are "not yet advanced enough" to recognize a minor Canadian sculptor? If you are so "advanced", put your money where your mouth is and enlighten us by writing a decent article on Helmuth. Gamaliel 19:52, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- The quality of the writing is adequate. Please save that line for the truly ugly articles. As Tim has already pointed out, the evidence is obviously difficult to obtain. I was under the impression that full-length articles are for entries more recognizable by the general public, and I will not lengthen Tim Helmuth's entry until I am shown otherwise as I currently suspect my time would be wasted. -- anon 15:40, 21 Jul 2004
- The quality of the writing is not adequate. It does not tell us anything significant about his work at all or explain why he is famous or held in supposedly such high esteem. It does not link to a single work, exhibition, or mention of him. It also asserts that "Fame has made him something of a recluse", a phrase that literally made me laugh out loud when I read it and is made all the more ridiculous when you assert that you can't actually prove that he is in fact famous. In all seriousness, wikipedia has its own standards and expectations, and if you want to contribute, then you have to meet them, not declare it "not advanced enough" to meet your requirements and walk off in a huff. The requirements aren't really that high, and a couple more sentences of prose and a link or two would be all it would take to make a perfectly adequate stub. Gamaliel 22:00, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- That's fine, then. I thought you were referring to the mechanics of the writing. -- anon 10:50, 22 Jul 2004
- The quality of the writing is not adequate. It does not tell us anything significant about his work at all or explain why he is famous or held in supposedly such high esteem. It does not link to a single work, exhibition, or mention of him. It also asserts that "Fame has made him something of a recluse", a phrase that literally made me laugh out loud when I read it and is made all the more ridiculous when you assert that you can't actually prove that he is in fact famous. In all seriousness, wikipedia has its own standards and expectations, and if you want to contribute, then you have to meet them, not declare it "not advanced enough" to meet your requirements and walk off in a huff. The requirements aren't really that high, and a couple more sentences of prose and a link or two would be all it would take to make a perfectly adequate stub. Gamaliel 22:00, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- The quality of the writing is adequate. Please save that line for the truly ugly articles. As Tim has already pointed out, the evidence is obviously difficult to obtain. I was under the impression that full-length articles are for entries more recognizable by the general public, and I will not lengthen Tim Helmuth's entry until I am shown otherwise as I currently suspect my time would be wasted. -- anon 15:40, 21 Jul 2004
- Which is more likely? That we dislike poorly written and laughably ridiculous two sentence articles with no supporting evidence, or that we are "not yet advanced enough" to recognize a minor Canadian sculptor? If you are so "advanced", put your money where your mouth is and enlighten us by writing a decent article on Helmuth. Gamaliel 19:52, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
