Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew B. Campbell

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew B. Campbell

This could arguably be speedied as A7 since it makes no assertion of notability, but there is some chance that this might be a notable subject just stated in a horribly precious way. That part of the article which is vaguely encyclopaedic hints that it is a copyvio from an exhibition catalogue. Absent any evidence of notability, though, I'd say it's not worth the effort of finding out and fixing the article. I can't claim to be an aret luvvie but I have been known to visit Tate Modern and I loved the white boxes installation, so this is not a "delete all living artists" nomination. Just zis Guy you know? 11:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  • According to one of his own bio's, Andrew B. Campbell is "the antithesis of the celebrity seeking and publicity driven shallowness prevalent in our egocentric age". So he'd probably want us to Delete this, until his work has been acclaimed by verifiable independent sources. I see no reason to disagree. Vizjim 11:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete six times in different colours. Do it in a way that can be replicated by any kid who knows how to change the hue in Photoshop. The JPS talk to me 12:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Might also want to remove from various lists? Dlyons493 Talk 12:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per JzG. -- Kjkolb 13:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 223 Ghits would not be notable.--Jusjih 14:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above Computerjoe's talk 15:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, almost as important an artist as Daniel C. Boyer ... wait, what am I saying. Terminate with extreme prejudice - GWO
    • That wasn't really necessary, was it? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 16:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
      • None of this is really necessary. -- GWO
  • Comment I would like to request that the nominator withdraws this AfD for the time being. It was proposed for deletion only 8 hours after I put a notability tag on the article, the purpose of which is to give the chance for establishing notability with a warning that, if this is not done, the article will be proposed for deletion. I do not regard it as proper etiquette to completely ignore this and propose for deletion regardless, particularly as the nominator has even stated, "there is some chance that this might be a notable subject." I left a message on the editor's talk page and he has come back to me with some substantial references, including exhibiting with the likes of Damien Hirst, Sarah Lucas and Gavin Turk, and being acknowledged by, amongst others, Louisa Buck. I was, furthermore, already familiar with this artist before the entry on Wiki even appeared. I am a member of two relevant Wiki projects, WikiProject Contemporary Art and WikiProject Visual arts. We are trying to improve the poor coverage of art on Wiki, my interest being particularly in contemporary art. I request co-operation from other Wiki editors to this end. It would be helpful if proposed art/artists AfD could be run past members of the projects first, as we have some knowledge of the subject, which may not always be clear from a cursory investigation. Some artists, for example, can achieve huge hits on google via various blogs etc, but are not necessarily notable. Others can hold a reputable position via shows, catalogues and books etc, which may not equate with google hits. I am in the middle of a dialogue with the editor of the article, and the material being provided at the moment, when it presented correctly, looks as though it will pass muster and make a proper article. We need to encourage new editors in this area, who by definition will probably make a mess of their inital editing attempts, not being familiar with Wiki's particular requirements (which are different to the way art may be written about elsewhere) but that is no reason to BITE. Everyone has to start somewhere. Tyrenius 21:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment Assuming that the nominator chooses not to withdraw, and having read your exchange with the writer, my vote stands. Campbell's "claim to fame" appears to be interpolating his works into others' exhibitions, and exhibiting at spaces that, when I lived in London anyway, were available for rent. If the writer comes up with any of the claimed press coverage (even issues and page references will do), then it'd be time to change the vote. There's more than enough time to do so.Vizjim 08:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. That is why I put the notabilty and other tags on the article, and what I am in the process of finding out. It would be better to start an AfD, if necessary, knowing the facts, rather than guessing them. However, whether the subject meets wiki notability requirements or not, the information given, if correct, certainly shows the subject has received proper art school training and is a committed practitioner, involved with the contemporary London art scene. Some of the comments made in the AfD are, to say the least, frivolous. Established editors may not realise the effect of these on newbies. In this case it is as follows: I hadn’t counted on my innocent contribution Re: The Artist - Andrew Campbell - being met by such a cynical and – quite frankly – offensive...response from a bunch of people who blatantly know little about art. (Mostyn) Some Wikiquette wouldn't go amiss. Tyrenius 09:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
The editor/subject is unwilling or unable or uninterested in providing any substantiation for notability, so that clarifies the issue.Tyrenius 19:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per above. Tyrenius 19:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Good try anyway - we do need to avoid biting. Dlyons493 Talk 19:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Jusjih. Kuzaar 17:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete/Recreate from scratch because I think that he should have an article. Andrew Campbell artist brought 76,000 google hits. —Mets501talk 16:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC) - upon looking into it more, he doesn't need an article here. —Mets501talk 16:57, 20 May 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.