Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Wigdor

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 15:01, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Keith Wigdor

Non-notable. Vanity Page. Anon author (user#24..., user#63..., Keith Wigdor) created article to promote himself. The subject article is non-notible and has created a vanity page. Delete. --Bleedy 18:40, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. With over 21,000 google hits, Keith Wigdor does seen to have some notariety. Additionally, the article and its associated talk page serve a useful purpose in keeping much of the continual juvenile petty bickering between Wigdor's admirers and detractors contained away from other articles. -- Infrogmation 19:54, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I've noted the large numbers of hits myself. However, I've struggled to find anything significant among them, that doesn't seem to be authored by Wigdor himself. (Often accompanied by abusive comments from others; similar pattern as here, really. Indeed, very likely the same others (or other) as here.) If the views of the admirers and detractors could be distilled down into something semi-encyclopaedic-looking, the article could be significantly improved. If there's no real art-crit of him, though, it does raise valid notability questions. If there is, can someone please cite it, with a view to inclusion in the article? Alai 20:13, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Keith Wigdor is notable enough to be appointed by Terrance Lindall, the executive director of The Williamsburg Art and Historical Society (art mecca in Brooklyn, New York City) and legendary artist and illustrator of countless magazine and book covers, as LEAD JUDGE for the 2nd Surrealist Film Festival held at the WAH. Since it is a FACT that the WAH Center, (a HIGHLY RESPECTED Art Institution) invited Keith Wigdor to come on down and judge a Surrealist Film Festival indicates that Wigdor certainly is NOTABLE! Also, the Founding Member of THE WEST COAST SURREALIST GROUP, Gregg Simpson, exhibited in Wigdor's virtual online event, SURREALISM 2003. Also, Wigdor was featured in CHURN ART MAGAZINE, in the same issue as the legendary H.R.GIGER and other heavies in the arts. The best selling Science Fiction Author, Greg Bear knows of Keith Wigdor, when Wigdor illustrated the winter 2001 issue of The Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, Greg has a copy of that magazine and another famous author, Paul Levinson has one of Wigdor's art prints hanging in his office. Also, Wigdor was just interviewed by the webzine, LATCHKEY, which is now online.24.168.67.238 20:29, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Bleedy, what you wrote above is not true. I did not create the article. Infrogmation created the article.24.168.67.238 19:52, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Delete. I haven't attempted to determine the notability of the subject, but after taking a look at the Talk and History pages, the VfD nominator (Bleedy) has been involved in a lengthy edit war with various users from 24.168.*, who are likely to be the same person. It looks to me like a case of "I can't have it my way, so I'm taking my ball and going home," but it's hard to say. At any rate, this dispute should be solved on the article's Talk page, not by deleting the article. Android79 21:17, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • I see your point, but in the end the previous dispute shouldn't matter in deciding whether or not this subject is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Gamaliel 18:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you're right. I was just concerned that this VfD nomination was motivated by something else than concern over the notability of the subject. I suppose I was a bit naïve to think that the parties involved would start to play nice. After looking at the other arguments, I've decided to change my vote. Android79 20:32, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This whole article and edit war has been a total waste of time. I don't think this Wigdor even has anything to do with the art world.--Cukestroke 00:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Google gives plenty of hits but most of them are his artworks rather than anything significantly biographical in nature. His autobiographical site [1] doesn't suggest anything notable. Megan1967 03:42, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep.Simply because some people are not familar with this individual's work,does not infer that many others are not both familar with it,and have been influenced by it...I have not met Keith Wigdor in person...but I do have familiarity with his work...besides being a unique corpus of visual work,it also embodies an educated surrealistic movement that resurrects many fundamental propositions of the original surrealistic movement in the arts...it is a perspective that is refreshingly pre-Dali,yet beyond being a mere recapitulation of the past,is a voice unique to our time...I VOTE TO KEEP THE ARTICLE!gmonkai 18:22, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC).
  • Only five edits, four of which are to this discussion. Gamaliel 18:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I VOTE TO DELETE THE ARTICLE. I PREFER MY ARTENLINE PAGES. PLEASE FORGIVE ME, FOR ALL WHO HAVE SUPPORTED MY CAUSE, BUT I VOTE FOR THE DELETION OF THE ARTICLE. THANK YOU KEITH WIGDOR.--Keith-Wigdor 15:20, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The above user, "Keith-Wigdor" is an imposter. Wigdor made an official announcement to the Wikipedia Community back on Feb.20,2005 concerning this user. Please disregard the above post. I will notify an Administrator immediately about this user, "Keith-Wigdor".24.168.67.238 16:19, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to where Wigdor has said that this user is an imposter? Wondering, -- Infrogmation 19:36, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Infrogmation, Wikipedia was already warned about the imposter in a public statement made by Wigdor to Wikipedia on Feb.20, 2005 at the URL http://artenligne.com/@/KeithWigdor

Scroll down the page to read the following, ". Added February 20 Dear Wikipedia, this is Keith Wigdor, Surrealist. It has come to my attention that there is an imposter using my name on your encyclopedia's website talk pages. They have created a user account and they are logging in to your site by placing a dashmark (-) between my first and last name and leaving posts while impersonating me. I am not this person posting as the user, "Keith-Wigdor". I need to inform you of this unfortunate situation and I hope that anyone in authority over at Wikipedia can prevent this person from impersonating me and harrassing your site. I do not know who to contact on your site and I felt it best to make a public statement where everyone can see in order to fix this problem. Thank you, Keith Wigdor, Surrealist Feb.20, 2005"

Wikipedia was also warned about this imposter back on the article's discussion page as well.24.168.67.238 20:15, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You probably want to go here. As far as disregarding it, there are several contributions here that I would 'weigh lightly', were I the one tallying these votes. One might also ponder the possible use of socks here; for that one would want to contact a developer. Alai 20:08, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Chap seems non-notable to say the least, has trouble with Wikipedia, and appears to have been involved in a kerfuffle over at Surrealism, according to the RfC page. As for having a 'unique corpus of visual work', it would be unfair to comment. -Ashley Pomeroy 18:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Currently well under my bar of notability. Some day, no doubt ... and make sure you let me know when you finally get to exhibit in SF, I'll drop by! HyperZonk^talk 18:29, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No entry in the Grove Art database. No hits in any biographical database I have access to. No hits in the last ten years in Nexis. Gamaliel 18:44, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I was going to refrain from voting, as I've been trying to be as even-handed as possible in the edit war between the two parties, but the antics of the Wigdorites are getting too much. I've asked repeatedly for evidence of notability of the subject, and in response I've been told that 'notability isn't policy', to 'go away' and stop 'stalking' the various incarnations of 24.168.*.*, and much other repetitious, lengthy, ALL CAPS bluster; pretty much anything but a useful response. (And besides that of being 24.168.*.* by Bleedy, go figger.) If he's notable, it should be possible to cite legitimate art criticism of his work, not just personal testimony from a bunch of anons and single-figures-edits new users about why they consider him notable. I'll change my vote if someone does so, even at this late stage. Gmonkai, you may yell "fascism", but it's the policy. (From Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators: "For example, administrators can disregard votes and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such "bad faith" votes include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article.") If you want to change the policy, you could start by showing some interest in any aspect of wikipedia aside from the fate of this one miserable little article. If you can think of a good reason why accounts, created by all appearances to help stack a vote, should be given the same status as wikipedians of some demonstrated standing, then by all means go argue that in the appropriate place (which is not this deletion vote). Alai 23:04, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Note some comments withdrawn here...but Alai,given positions you have taken in the past-the posturing of an "evenhandedness" strikes me as a bit staged,as I feel your position was fairly entrenched previous to this edit war...But the motivations for your position I have become convinced have to do with established conventions of the site...and I herein offer apologies for any personal aspersions...When friends and acquaintances of mine who wished to express opinions here and were not allowed admission to editing were suggested to be vandals,site violators,et al....this was a bit much for me...they are both intelligent and informed on the topic...and as they are barred by some convention,in my opinion the site denies itself a very healthy influx to it's roster...I do understand the reasons as explained,because yes-they would enter and vote on this as a first issue-that doesn't mean that a fair percentage wouldn't stay and perhaps offer many good contributions...but again,as in person,I thankyou for suggestions made on my talk sheet..I believe they delineate lines of action that work within this system that could be more affective to this cause...I believe that some of the published reviews and criticques may exist,and that constructive energy should be applied to corrollating and presenting them...but I also believe an influx of respectable working artisans knowledgeable regarding this artist's work would have done this site and edit war no harm,and further I believe their views would likewise have been relevant to the issue of "notability",in the least they would have proven this artist to be well past "emerging"...I do not know who or what has been blocking their entrance,but I do feel rather certain that it has not been you,Alai.gmonkai.
    • Gladly accepted. I wouldn't claim to have been perfectly even-handed, only as even-handed as I could manage at any given time. (Possibly if only by way of being equally annoyed at 24.*.*.* and Bleedy by turns at times.) But before the edit war, I had no position at all, much less an entrenched one, as I'd not even heard of Keith Wigdor. (See the article talk page for the spookily mundane history of all this.) If the cavalry has arrived to save and improve the Wigdor article, but just too late, as I commented to you elsewhere, perhaps an article about the subject can be created with (much!) better documentation as to his notability at a later date. (I have no idea how much later would be a decent interval, and before anyone jumps down my throat, I am absolutely not suggesting recreation of the same content, at this or any other time.) I hope your friends are able to resolve their technical/blocking issue (and I sincerely hope it was the latter). Alai 21:27, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • First of all, please desist with the personal attacks. If you're referring to the message left by User:El_C, he was referring to the apparent (and as I cynically, but correctly predicted, extremely temporary) agreement between Bleedy and 24.168.*.* as to the content of the article. Unless for some reason you believe he was congratulating me for the vote I hadn't made yet, in a deletion vote that hadn't started yet: look at the date of the edit, Mar 1. If you're referring to something else, you've lost me entirely. And I haven't a) been presented with any of the information I requested -- doesn't even have to be objective, just "quotable" -- or b) 'found all manner of reasons' for anything of the sort. I informed anyone who'd listen of what the policy is, I didn't made the policy, I won't be the person implementing (or otherwise) the policy, and I haven't excluded anyone from anything. You may withdraw these accusations at your earlier convenience. Alai 10:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • And on your last point (edit conflict, didn't reply to it in the original), the only issue is the notability of the Keith Wigdor article. If anyone has any information on that, it ought to be forwarded with all expeditiousness. I have no knowledge of anyone being barred admission -- contact an admin, or a developer. I don't see how that's material to this VfD, however. If the problem is simply some urgently information, can't it be forwarded via someone else? What I'm seeing, though, is lots of complaints about process, and nothing substantiative to the matter at hand. Alai 10:18, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, sockpuppet antics. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:50, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, vanity page. BTfromLA 00:31, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I've moved large chunks of unrelated discussion, accusations of fascism, etc, to the articles talk page, which can be reached by clicking on the discussion tag. Let's keep this page organized, please. Gamaliel 01:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, sockpuppet supported. Remember to delete the various talk page archives as well, Wikipedia is not a repository for anon drivel. jni 16:27, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with jni. --Neigel von Teighen 21:34, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP. keith is the man keep the article! (Who posted this?)
  • Twas by User:Iodprod, who ought to sign. But as it was their only edit ever... Alai 02:56, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Jonathunder 05:44, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
• Delete. Brookie 20:23, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Inforgmation with respects to notability, though I do see a need for further expansion – and on that front, I echo much of Alai's sentiments. I also wish to commend Alai for his patient and dedicated work with the article and its endless disputes. El_C 21:48, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Evidently Keith Wigdor himself votes DELETE: Here's an excerpt from his web page (a link is on the disputed page), dated Mar 6: " I, Keith Wigdor, Surrealist, would like to ask the Wikipedia Community to please delete the Keith Wigdor article. I would like to thank this person, "Infrogmation" for creating this article, but I really do not want any article in an encyclopedia, though it was very kind of you to consider an article on me, but my main concern is surrealism and photomontage, not encyclopedias. Read one of my past statements from the website Art Renegades from three years ago (it is still online). I do thank both Infrogmation and EL_C for their interest in my art but I do not want the article online after this harrassment. I would also like to thank the Wikipedia Encyclopedia for considering any article on me, (I am flattered) but I must decline. Congratulations on the success of your website and please stop the person (or persons) from using your website to harrass me. Wikipedia, Thank you, Keith Wigdor, Surrealist." BTfromLA 19:54, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I know, but if he is, in fact, notable, his own wishes are not pertinent, and the same is true for any person, organization, etc. Of course, I regret any hardships endured by the artist, but, nontehelss, we have responsibility for encyclopedicity El_C 03:30, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • That's perfectly true. But if he's a user registered here before the start of this vote (which would appear to be the case: User:Keith Wigdor has one edit, his own user page) then he'd get to vote like anyone else, no more, and no less. Unless that's another imposter, of course... Alai 05:17, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Totally unrelated to Keith Wigdor, but imagine that an organization with hunderds of members (who all read the rules and register before a vote) wishes to have an article deleted — it would be utter madness! El_C 06:47, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • This is true. There's also some vague language in the guidance to admins about how to judge "rough consensus", and how to weight votes from users with very limited numbers of edits... Alai 07:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Keith Wigdor. Hyacinth 21:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Subjects of articles don't get the option of deciding whether or not articles should be deleted. RickK 07:31, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.