Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Barr 1867-1933 California Artist
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 no consensus. W.marsh 23:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] William Barr (artist)
- Delete: Doesn't appear to be notable and is definitely vanity. Possibly a copyright issue (one phrase near the top is a direct copy from http://www.askart.com/AskART/B/william_barr/william_barr.aspx here but some of that site is subscription-only). Both images have similar copyvio issues since they say the author created them but this painter died in 1933! The external link I just mentioned, askart.com, appears to have zillions of artists - 5,393 in B alone - but it's one of the only decent sources I can find. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Vanity? How come? Seems to be a notable artist. I'll move to William Barr (artist) per WP:MOS. The two pictures in the article are photos that the uploader has taken of the original artwork, hence his assertion that he owns them. However, I am not an expert on whether this is allowed as the works in question are almost certainly not his. Askart is a database of painters and their works so it will have a few people listed! --Steve (Slf67) talk 00:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Vanity because the author is Wbarrart (talk • contribs) - W-barr-art. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it's him, considering the article states he was born in 1867. I don't know many 140-year-olds writing wikipedia articles. Wavy G 02:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The romanticised notion of Scotland (the implication that in the early 20th century, an artist would have to travel "freely about the countryside to sell his paintings" or that Scotland entered WWI without the rest of the UK), unsourced quotes from the man himself, references to the "Paisley Museum of Art" (Paisley has a museum with local art galleries, but it has no "Museum of Art") and the username of the creator (Wbarrart) suggest to me the well-intentioned efforts of an American descendant. -- IslaySolomon | talk 03:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Vanity because the author is Wbarrart (talk • contribs) - W-barr-art. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above.--Notth 00:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC) — Notth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete without prejudice to recreation if reliable sources are found about the man. The article did not cite reliable sources and Google Books does not have anything on him. [1] I question whether askart.com can be used to assert notability. Moreover, that is just one source and I could not find any other reliable ones. JChap2007 01:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Being dead certainly does not equate to notability. There is no assertion of notability in the article and no reliable sources are cited. Moreover, the section beginning with the outbreak of the First World War isn't so much original research as just made up. -- IslaySolomon | talk 03:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Weakish keep. Seems of some minor notability in the art scene of California in the early 20th century. If you're looking for reliable sources, JChap, I can suggest here, or here, or here. The thing needs trimming back to what is actually verifiable, though. His works seem to sell for a couple of thousand $US, which is a reasonable indication, BTW. Grutness...wha? 03:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, they're listed for a couple thousand $US. Listing and appraisal don't equate to sale value. At the last art auction I attended, every piece was appraised at 5-10 times what they sold for. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Those sources are short blurbs from websites that sell art. If he were truly a notable late nineteenth or early twentieth century artist, one would expect to find him discussed in books or scholarly resources, but Google Books and Google Scholar turn up goose eggs. JChap2007 16:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep He's obviously not as well known as Picasso, but he's an artist who received enough note to still come up in a basic web search. He seems notable to me, from what I've seen. I think more citations should be added to the article, and that it should be cleaned up. I also think any portion that is a copyvio should be cut out - but none of those are reasons to delete (rather than just trimming back to a stub, at worst). In any event, I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that the author of the page was somehow associated with the painter (e.g. a dealer or relative). It seems to me just as plausible that he is a huge William Barr fan, noticed the lack of an article about the artist, and signed on just to make one - precisely the sort of thing we like to have happen. --TheOtherBob 04:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- So coming up on the web at all = notability? That's a new one to me. I guess all 5,000+ other artists starting with the letter B on the page I provided should also get an article, eh? We better get busy. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm. I'll assume good faith, and maybe I'm in a bad mood (it's pretty early in the morning), but your response seems overly sarcastic and antagonistic. Anyways, I'm not going to get into a debate with you about how many Ghits equals notability - but here I see enough. You disagree? Ok, please feel free. Oh, and are there 5000+ other artists on that website whose names start with the letter B? Great. That should keep us occupied for a while. --TheOtherBob 13:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- I haven't mentioned ghits at all. Now that you mention it, if I put in more than two or three relevant words into a Google search, I come up with nothing. [2] shows nothing, [3] brings up unrelated genealogy, this one for his "notable painting" shows zero hits. Frankly, if one were to remove all unreliable info from this article, very little would be left. From the tone of it, I wouldn't be surprised if it were a copyvio from a book but I can't prove it. Also from the tone of it, it's very spammy sounding and a WP:CSD#G11 candidate. My WP:AGF was in bringing it here instead of just deleting it on sight. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- We aren't talking about Ghits? I was under the impression that we were, since that's what you were responding to - but I'll take your word on that. Anyways, the searches you've run (including "Anne Beaton" (I don't know who that is) and "John McGilvray" (same problem - though I see the name in the article)) seem to me to be poor indicators, and I'm in no way surprised that an individual work of art by a minor artist doesn't show up in a Google search. (I'd suggest running the artist's name and "artist.") To address your other points: if the article is about someone on whom there is reliable information, but is not based on that reliable information - write something reliable (or add a tag asking someone else to). If it's a copyvio, cut it down to a stub. I disagree about the claimed "spammy" tone - I rarely receive spam regarding early 20th century artists, and sincerely doubt (unless you can point me to something more than a naked allegation) that it's blatant advertising. I would be very surprised to find someone actively advertising the works of a long-dead painter. On the other hand, articles about them are precisely the sort of thing I'd expect to find in an encyclopedia. So I'm still on the side of keep. --TheOtherBob 15:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Search this page - the first mention of Google and ghits is not mine. The three searches I just did were all with the first three unique-looking things I saw in the article. We agree that the whole article should be chopped down to a stub - and it will be if no one finds sources for it all. The search you suggest is a common misconception at AFD - if you search on his name and "artist", all you've proven is that he's an artist. I'd like something to prove that he's a notable artist - or at least more notable than the 5,000+ artists that start with the letter B on that page. You yourself just characterized him as a "minor artist" which doesn't speak well for his notability. I'll drop the spamminess hints - at the very least, the last sentence left me with a spammy feeling. The whole thing leaves me with a copyvio feeling: William Barr was struck by the beauty of the California landscape... - how does anyone know that? John McGilvray was a successful builder... - based on what? Who says? I'll bet whatever brochure it was copied from says. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Wait - your comment is under mine, and I took it to mean that you were discussing what I was saying. Are you not discussing whether my comment on web searches was accurate? (I suppose the web search we were discussing could have been done with Yahoo, but I think that's a distinction without a difference.) Anyways, I don't think it matters, and will gladly grant you that it was my idea to talk about Ghits if that will resolve that part of the question. You are, however, confusing (if you'll excuse my saying so) notability with fame. They aren't the same thing - and a notable artist can be a minor artist. (Wikipedia should include minor, perhaps even obscure, artists.) I also disagree about the "searching his name with artist only proves that he is an artist." If I searched for Joe Smith with artist, and got lots of pages saying "Joe Smith is an artist," that's probably (though not always) a notable artist - notable enough to have been mentioned as an artist multiple times. Have I found something saying "Joe Smith is a notable artist who probably would meet the standards of AfD"? No - of course not. But if I've found enough about the person (and I think I have here), then he's probably notable. So, I'm still in Keep. The copyvio thing - yeah, like I said, I get the same general feeling. As I've said all along, I think it should be trimmed and cleaned up.--TheOtherBob 21:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Search this page - the first mention of Google and ghits is not mine. The three searches I just did were all with the first three unique-looking things I saw in the article. We agree that the whole article should be chopped down to a stub - and it will be if no one finds sources for it all. The search you suggest is a common misconception at AFD - if you search on his name and "artist", all you've proven is that he's an artist. I'd like something to prove that he's a notable artist - or at least more notable than the 5,000+ artists that start with the letter B on that page. You yourself just characterized him as a "minor artist" which doesn't speak well for his notability. I'll drop the spamminess hints - at the very least, the last sentence left me with a spammy feeling. The whole thing leaves me with a copyvio feeling: William Barr was struck by the beauty of the California landscape... - how does anyone know that? John McGilvray was a successful builder... - based on what? Who says? I'll bet whatever brochure it was copied from says. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- We aren't talking about Ghits? I was under the impression that we were, since that's what you were responding to - but I'll take your word on that. Anyways, the searches you've run (including "Anne Beaton" (I don't know who that is) and "John McGilvray" (same problem - though I see the name in the article)) seem to me to be poor indicators, and I'm in no way surprised that an individual work of art by a minor artist doesn't show up in a Google search. (I'd suggest running the artist's name and "artist.") To address your other points: if the article is about someone on whom there is reliable information, but is not based on that reliable information - write something reliable (or add a tag asking someone else to). If it's a copyvio, cut it down to a stub. I disagree about the claimed "spammy" tone - I rarely receive spam regarding early 20th century artists, and sincerely doubt (unless you can point me to something more than a naked allegation) that it's blatant advertising. I would be very surprised to find someone actively advertising the works of a long-dead painter. On the other hand, articles about them are precisely the sort of thing I'd expect to find in an encyclopedia. So I'm still on the side of keep. --TheOtherBob 15:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- I haven't mentioned ghits at all. Now that you mention it, if I put in more than two or three relevant words into a Google search, I come up with nothing. [2] shows nothing, [3] brings up unrelated genealogy, this one for his "notable painting" shows zero hits. Frankly, if one were to remove all unreliable info from this article, very little would be left. From the tone of it, I wouldn't be surprised if it were a copyvio from a book but I can't prove it. Also from the tone of it, it's very spammy sounding and a WP:CSD#G11 candidate. My WP:AGF was in bringing it here instead of just deleting it on sight. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm. I'll assume good faith, and maybe I'm in a bad mood (it's pretty early in the morning), but your response seems overly sarcastic and antagonistic. Anyways, I'm not going to get into a debate with you about how many Ghits equals notability - but here I see enough. You disagree? Ok, please feel free. Oh, and are there 5000+ other artists on that website whose names start with the letter B? Great. That should keep us occupied for a while. --TheOtherBob 13:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- So coming up on the web at all = notability? That's a new one to me. I guess all 5,000+ other artists starting with the letter B on the page I provided should also get an article, eh? We better get busy. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per TheOtherBob. --Oakshade 06:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - fairly notable. I c e d K o l a (Contributions) 22:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- 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.
