Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ake Lianga

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 defaulting to keep. Coherent arguments have been made on both sides, and it comes down to a judgement call on where to draw the line. Ty 02:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ake Lianga

Ake Lianga (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Contested prod. Awards and exhibitions are not enough to meet WP:BIO criteria Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Lianga has not only won a notable award and had his work exhibited in the Alcheringa Gallery, among others; he has also been featured on the cover page of The Contemporary Pacific. Aridd (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The award is mentioned in an article, and is not the subject of one. Even if it were, that is often not sufficient to establish notability by itself. The WP:CREATIVE criteria are:
      • The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
      • The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
      • The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
      • The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.
    • He meets none of these. Johnbod (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
      • He's recognised enough to be invited to exhibit his work in noted galleries, and to be a guest speaker at the Fine Arts department of a university. The Contemporary Pacific, an academic journal, feels that he's notable enough to be likened to John Pule and Albert Wendt. That being the case, deleting the article makes far less sense than keeping it. Aridd (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Lianga has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources (and this is only what we've been able to find via Google; there is likely to be quite a bit of local coverage of him that does not show up in Google). Thus, he meets the basic notability criterion, irrespective of whether he meets one or more of the specific "Additional criteria" specified in WP:BIO. –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • If he is asserted to be notable as an artist, which he is, he needs to meet the criteria for artists. Thousands of local politicians etc meet the general criteria, but are excluded on the specific ones. Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
      • As noted at WP:BIO#Additional criteria: "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. [Howeverm, f]ailure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." The reason that articles on local politicians are sometimes excluded largely has to do with WP:BLP1E; that is, there is coverage of the campaign of the politician, but virtually no coverage of the politician himself/herself. That is not the case with Lianga. –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Black Falcon, you beat me to it. I was going to say: He has been covered as an artist by reliable sources. The bio guidelines say "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The guidelines also say that "Failure to meet [additional / more specific] criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included". We've established Lianga's notability; I see no valid reason to delete the article. Again, it makes a lot more sense to keep it than to delete it. Aridd (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
        • No, you haven't established his notability at all. He certainly does not meet the artist standards, and I would dispute that the references found so far meet the general standard. Even if failure to meet the artist standard is "not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included", no reasons why he should be a special case have been advanced. Johnbod (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
          • While Lianga is not internationally renowned, he does seem to be a person of note within his somewhat narrow field. He and his art have been covered non-trivially in several sources (not all of the 8 sources currently listed in the "References" section provide substantial coverage, but some do), and his work has been exhibited by various galleries and on the cover of a notable academic journal. While I certainly don't insist that this is a case where the subject's notability is clear beyond any reasonable doubt, I also do not agree that retaining this article would in any way make it a "special case". Why do you think that the references provided so far do not satisfy the general notability criterion? –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The only "coverage" produced is the 2-line quote, apparently unpublished, by his head of department, that is given in the article. Hardly "non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources". One magazine cover??? A web gallery that would be most unlikely to survive AfD itself??? Generally speaking, no one selling an acrylic painting a yard high for CAN$1,800 is going to be notable as an artist. Artists with better claims to notability get deleted here daily. Johnbod (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • How is the 2-line quote the only coverage in the article? What about the coverage here (or here - they are similar in content), here, and here. The two articles from the Times Colonist and the Lewiston Morning Tribune are relatively short (about 1-2 paragraphs each, at least as it relates to Lianga), but they still add to existing coverage of the subject (to some extent, notability is cumulative). There is also likely to be coverage of the subject in local newspapers of the Solomon Islands for, if nothing else, designing the logo for World Food Day for Honiara, the capital and largest city of the Solomon Islands (source). –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Repetitions of the standard PR bio info from his gallery and his university are neither independent nor particularly reliable. They only pick up the same quote from his prof by way of critical evaluation - if there were any more I'm sure it would be included. The same stuff is picked up by the magazine, and no doubt by local papers. No "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". It's not nearly enough. Johnbod (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
        • It is inevitable that different sources that cover Lianga's artistic accomplishments will include a lot of the same information. After all, everyone has only one set of accomplishments. As for the sources, in what way are Alcheringa Gallery and WSU "his gallery and his university", respectively? And why do you assert that they are not reliable? As for "critical evaluation", that is something that exists primarily for works of arts, books, films, ideas, and the like, but not so much for people. –Black Falcon (Talk) 21:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh really?? "critical attention" is what the policy calls it, and unfortunately he hasn't had any, except the prof. Johnbod (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because he was invited as a guest speaker at WSU and his work was exhibited and discussed there does not make it "his" university. That claim is quite frankly silly. Please explain in what way the Washington State University is "not independent" and "not reliable". Likewise, the Alcheringa Gallery is not, by any wild stretch of the imagination, "his" gallery. It exhibits artwork by a variety of artists from several countries. Again, please explain in what way it is "not independent" and "not reliable". You seem to be misinformed. If that's your basis for a delete tag, this should be a Speedy Keep. Aridd (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I was mixing the Washington University up with the one he is a alumnus and ex-employee of. The gallery represents him. I was not implying ownership by him in either case, but neither are independent. The gallery, like nearly all commercial galleries, is clearly not a reliable source on artists whose work it is trying to sell, and the nature of the professor's remarks (an unpublished quote, about an artist invited to exhibit and speak) mean he is unlikely to be a WP:RS in this context. Professors always say nice things about guest speakers, but these don't have the same status as comments in published articles or books. In my view this is a clear case of WP:ILIKEIT, but we have discussed the sources enough here, let's see what others think. Johnbod (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I can see both sides of this. On balance, though, I agree with Johnbod. I don't think there are multiple non-trivial references per the general requirements, and the travel grant isn't sufficient to meet the specific requirements. On the other hand, at least he's a working artist who's exhibited in a gallery, which is a step up from some of the artist bios taken to AfD.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Several galleries, to be accurate. And his exhibitions received press coverage, so it wasn't just the comments of the galleries themselves. Of course a representative of the uni who invited him would say nice things about him; that isn't the issue. The issue is that the university deemed him notable enough to be invited in the first place. Altogether, I think the attention he's received from notable organisations (academics and art galleries, plus the press, plus The Contemporary Pacific which clearly deems him as notable as art & literature celebrities like Wendt and Pule) clearly make him notable. I'll wait and see now what other people think, though. For the record, I didn't just write an article about him because I like his work, but because I'm trying to provide Wikipedia with articles on notable artists, writers, academics, politicians and sports people from the Oceania region. So WP:ILIKEIT doesn't come into it. I've created articles in the French Wikipedia on people I don't particularly like (Sitiveni Rabuka, for example). I don't see myself as a blind inclusionist, although I object to what I consider pointless deletion of certain articles. Anyway, let's see what other people think. Aridd (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. It's close, the artist needs a wider range of accomplishment, but is certainly a potentially worthwhile subject...Modernist (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone, by any chance, got a subscription to Project Muse to check these out? [1] Aridd (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep sufficient accomplishments for notability as an artist, and sufficient references to show it. DGG (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2008 (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.