Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Sherwin

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 keep. Far from a slam dunk, but the consensus is that the article has improved sufficiently to just get over the notability hurdle. I note that those who commented later (after improvements had been made) were more apt to support keeping it.--Kubigula (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Sherwin

Brian Sherwin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Repeatedly deleted non-notable artist. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete A couple claims here and there, but all in all it's way too far from general notability guidelines (none of the sources are really substantial). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN; the website he's notable for (myartspace) wouldn't even meet notability; even if it did, there have been a great many AfDs for a NN creator of a notable website. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • hangon I stand by my views. Should he just be listed as writer and art critic? A person who has been mentioned in Juxtapoz for his itnerviews and who has had reviews in Hi Fructose Magazine is notable. Those two sources also involve about 80,000 subscribers. The Stuckist site is a legit source and they have millions of members. The Illinois Times has a circulation of about 40,000 and is read by many more since it is delivered in public areas throughout that region of Illinois. His blog is one of the most visited art blogs on the net go to Alexa and find out for yourself. I also found mention of him involved with art charity. Chet Zar, Elana Guttman, Carrie Ann Baade and others have donated art to charity events he has managed. I don't think anyone off the street could interview James Rosenquist, Sylvia Sleigh, or Michael Craig-Martin (who instructed Damien Hirst I might add). And myartspace and Mr. Sherwin are very notable in the mainstream visual art community. When a person interviews artists who normally are only interviewed by ARTnews they are notable. Have you bothered to look at some of the jurors they have had? I don't see deviantart hosting competitions with jurors from the Tate Modern nor do I hear that site discussed in Chelsea. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

I also found more links where Sherwin is mentioned. www.beinart.org, www.undergroundartunion.com, http://artnews.org/artist.php?i=3622, www.photonewstoday.com/?p=11262, www.caniglia-art.com/news.htm, www.madhattersreview.com, http://www.myjournalcourier.com/articles/art_17151___article.html/gallery_damsgaard.html (Roodhouse1 (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

  • Delete In short, I couldn't look at any source here and conclude that Mr. Sherwin has been the subject of multiple non-trivial sources. I couldn't even find him in the Illinois Times piece and the Journal Courier has a blurb on his having organized a charity art auction (for his own charity). Being mentioned in a publication and being the subject of a piece are vastly different things. Montco (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • hangon There are two of his paintings on the cover of that issue of the Illinois Times. His paintings along with the other art on the cover were chosen to represent the art community in that region of Illinois. The charity was put together for the Eclectic Gallery by Sherwin to help raise money for youth art programs in that area of Illinois. Sherwin does not have a charity. Based on what I read he helped sponsor it by obtaining art from artists he is associated with. The Illinois Times and Journal Courier online articles represent articles that were published in those respected papers. As you probably know, online stubs like that rarely contain the full article because it is expected that the reader will buy the issue or find an issue. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC))
  • hangon I just found this http://2winks.blogspot.com/2008/04/schweeeet-kokeshi-in-hifructose-vol-7.html there you will find one of his reviews in Hi Fructose Magazine mentioned. If the main issue is about him being listed as an artist what do you think about having him listed as just a writer and art critic? I do find it interesting that he is an artist though because most art critics and review writers are not. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC))

There, I made some more changes. Does it work now? (Roodhouse1 (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC))

  • hangon I also want to make it clear that my original article about Brian Sherwin was deleted within minutes. I did not have time to edit and when I tried I was unable to do so. Is it common for articles to be deleted within minutes? I thought I would have time to flesh it out. I'm new so I'm sure I made some mistakes. One of the rules on notability mentions that a person must have significant coverage if they are notable due to the people they know. I think Brian Sherwin fits that criteria. Many of the notable artists Mr. Sherwin has interviewed, such as Aleksandra Mir ( http://www.aleksandramir.info/bibliography.html scroll down to interviews ), have their interviews with him mentioned in their cv or resume which is a type of reference that is often included in published works about the artist or exhibit materials. Other notable artists such as Chet Zar, Cam de Leon, Mark Ryden, Michael Craig-Martin, Patrick Brill, Sylvia Sleigh, Alex Grey, Georgina Starr, Mark McGowan, Norman Carlberg on wikipedia that have been interviewed by Mr. Sherwin have no doubt passed those interviews on to a countless number of people and are referenced by people throughout the net. If they see him as notable as someone to mention on their resume I would think that wikipedia would see him as notable as well based on that criteria alone. Art sites/magazines like Juxtapoz have selected his interviews for coverage and are notable according to wikipedia. His interviews and reviews have been published online and offline. So I fail to see how he is not considered notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roodhouse1 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep, seems notable, credible, clearly the article needs work, categories, and other links but the article seems worthwhile...Modernist (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Based on an overall assessment that this improves the usefulness of the encyclopedia rather than lowering its standard. Sherwin's name undoubtedly gets around via his interviews, which constitute a very impressive list. He is a significant face on Myartspace, which on my Alexa check came in with a rank of 162,000 out of 100,000,000 web sites in the world, which is very good for an art site of this nature (compare the Frick Collection some way below at 463,000): I realise the limitations of Alexa, but it does provide some rough indication. Sherwin is not a major figure, but passes the threshold. He is someone that those interested in contemporary art may well want to find out more about and turn to wikipedia for that information. That is what it is here for. Ty 02:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The bio has had many changes since Jeremy's vote. I don't think that is fair. Jeremy's opinions are based on assumptions and are false as well. Sherwin is not the creator of myartspace. He is their Senior Editor. I don't think an assumption of if myartspace is notable or not has anything to do with this specific bio. However, I will say that myartspace is notable in the since that the site has had exhibits in the South of France an in the Chelsea art district in Manhattan with jurors from the Tate Modern, Sotheby's, National Portrait Gallery, SAIC. Professionals regard the site highly. As far as artist networking sites are concerned it is very notable. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 08:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

  • Comment - the following is what Roodhouse1 wrote on my talk page about this AfD.
"I was told I put this in the wrong place. Hopefully I have it in the right place now. I noticed your vote for this bio. It seems to me that some of the statements about this bio being deleted are based more on assumptions than fact. For example, JeremyMcCracken voted for deletion of the Brian Sherwin bio stating "the website he's notable for (myartspace) wouldn't even meet notability; even if it did, there have been a great many AfDs for a NN creator of a notable website.". I think an artist networking site that has been involved with curators from the Tate Modern, The National Portrait Gallery, SAIC, and Sotheby's, and that has had exhibits in the South of France and the Chelsea art district in Manhattan is notable.
The question about myartspace is not the issue here in the first place and I will add that the idea that Sherwin is the creator of the site is an assumption because he is not nor was it ever stated on the bio that he was. He is their Senior Editor and a founding member as noted by their Management Team page. That is clear in the bio. So how can someone mark a bio for deletion when they obviously did not read the bio and the changes that have been made? I appreciate your vote, but I don't think it was made in good faith because you simply agreed with Jeremy's reasoning without additional reasons for your vote. Much has changed with the bio since Jeremy's vote. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC))"
  • reply to comment In your vote you simply agreed with Jeremy. However, Jeremy's info was 1.) outdated because the bio has changed much since his vote. 2.) contained false information about the subject of the bio that had nothing to do with the bio in the first place. You sir obviously did not read the bio because you agreed Jeremy's exact words and you did not offer additional reasons that could help improve upon the bio as a whole. Since assumptions rule the day here I can only assume that you made the delete vote in bad faith. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC))
  • Keep in its current state given the fact that the author has done an exemplary job of coming up with third-party references. The original was a clear-cut speedy, but it sure looks fine now. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - although I agree that the article is much improved from the original, I still don't see any independent, reliable sources in which the subject of the article is the focus. I did a very quick search on him, but came up empty-handed. He's mentioned in several articles, but his coverage from what I've seen is sparse. Are there any independent sources listed as references in the article in which he is the focus that I have missed? If there are, I'd be happy to change my opinion on this.BWH76 (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
      • It comes under "multiple independent sources". I found a lot of people were citing him for his interviews, including Juxtapoz, which is very highly regarded in its sector of the art world. Ty 02:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply to Comment BWH76 I can't find anything written directly about Sherwin aside from the mention of the charity he helped put together and where he has been mentioned for his interviews. You have to realize that he is an interviewer and a young one at that. There is no biography written about him if that is what you are suggesting should be listed. However, that is not the only sign of notability according to what I read in the rules about notability. Interviewing 400 artists since late 2006 is no easy task nor is combining the mainstream artists and underground artists as Sherwin has done. These interviews are important because they document both sides of art culture and these interviews would not take place if Sherwin was not asking the questions. His work deserves to be noticed. I've provided everything I've been asked to provide for this bio. I've provided more cites on the Sherwin bio than what I see on most of the bios that I've found on here. Wikipedia is supposed to about revealing new people and things of interest and things and people that deserve notice, not just show boating the same content we can find anywhere else. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC))
    • You're entirely wrong on that one. Wiki only allows content that is show-boated elswhere. See WP:NOR and WP:V. That is what the references establish. Ty 00:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

What I meant is that wikipedia is not just about having articles and bios about people and things that have been in the New York Times. Other publications are notable in their own right and I think that has been established with this bio. This is not NewYorkTimespedia. Other publications both online and offline should be considered with the same respect or at least given the benefit of the doubt. Just because a publication is not notable to Person A does not mean that it is not notable to Person B and hundreds of thousands of people who agree with Person B. That is how I view it. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC))

  • So is that it? PMDrive, does that mean the bio is accepted? Should I start working on the other bios I plan to contribute? Also, if I do an article on the major art fairs of today should I do one for each fair or combine them all in one article? I'm talking about Scope, Pulse, Art Chicago and fairs like that.(Roodhouse1 (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC))
    • The outcome will be decided by whichever admin closes this discussion in due course by weighing up the arguments put forward. I will post on your talk page about the fairs. Ty 00:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Added a link showing Sherwin listed on Aleksandra Mir's resume. Mir has been mentioned in several top art magazines, the New York Times, and has shown at the Tate, Saatchi's, and the Mary Boone Gallery as well as other important venues. She has been at Frieze as well. Trying to track down other resumes but I've noticed that a lot of these artists have not updated the online version of their resumes for years so it might be tough. I'm still considering the link to Grateful Web's post containing Sherwin's interview with Alex Grey. Grateful Web has been around since the early 90s but I don't know if they would be considered reliable based on that alone. I also think Sherwin's review of the Kokeshi Project for Hi Fructose would be interesting to add since some people have described that as a new movement and it is starting to get some mainstream (in Japan) attention since that issue. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC))
Add whatever you think suitable. If others disagree, it can be discussed. Ty 22:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ty et al. Nom might note he is not described (except in passing) or categorized as an artist, but as an art critic and curator. Johnbod (talk) 00:58, 12 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.