Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul McCarthy
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 per WP:SNOW, needs clean-up to correct WP:BLP issues. feydey 12:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Paul McCarthy
Contested PROD, procedural nomination. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 27#Paul McCarthy. Chick Bowen 02:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. A simple google search will reveal that McCarthy is a major artist. The article itself isn't very good, but it can be improved easily. I have added a brief bibliography and some more links and will work on this some more tomorrow. Freshacconci 03:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep unfortunately, this gentleman is a well-known artist. Bigdaddy1981 03:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete unless sourced - this article makes inflammatory claims about the guy and unless they are sourced, that's a WP:BLP issue. I have no idea whether they are true ... I have no reason to believe that they aren't, but unsourced articles about living people, particularly those with a negative tone, are not permitted. --BigDT 04:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep It would be outrageous to not have an encyclopedia entry about one of our most important living artists. BigDT, who admits he has no idea about art, is correct that this article needs to be sourced, but that's very different from deleted.Aroundthewayboy 04:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Also, I don't see how the article is "negative in tone." Just because it mentions that he uses bodily fluids and masochism? Welcome to contemporary art. That's factual description, not judgmemental prescription. But I agree that it needs to be sourced. Aroundthewayboy 04:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, that's fine, but if, hypothetically, those claims were untrue, it would be libel. This article cannot exist unless it is sourced. If you want to keep it, all you have to do is find sources for the claims in it. WP:V and WP:RS are fundamental content policies on Wikipedia ... this isn't a novel claim here. --BigDT 04:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict with BigDT, whom I appear to echo) Even as I have to imagine that to most contemporary artists (as, for that matter, to me) a suggestion that one works in bodily fluids would not be particularly troublesome and would almost surely not be perceived as defamatory, BigDT is quite right that we generally (rightly or wrongly) remove from BLPs any unsourced material that might be controversial, even if not to a reasonable observer, such that several parts of the article (if not the entire text) would, under BLP, merit removal in the absence of good sourcing. I gather, though, that the stellar work done by Freshacconci resolves most of the sourcing issues, and his adding citations to specific pages in the works of the bibliography would surely assuage any BLP concerns one might have. Joe 04:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've removed the paragraph in question. BigDT is right that it needs to very carefully sourced if it's going to be included. Chick Bowen 04:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict with BigDT, whom I appear to echo) Even as I have to imagine that to most contemporary artists (as, for that matter, to me) a suggestion that one works in bodily fluids would not be particularly troublesome and would almost surely not be perceived as defamatory, BigDT is quite right that we generally (rightly or wrongly) remove from BLPs any unsourced material that might be controversial, even if not to a reasonable observer, such that several parts of the article (if not the entire text) would, under BLP, merit removal in the absence of good sourcing. I gather, though, that the stellar work done by Freshacconci resolves most of the sourcing issues, and his adding citations to specific pages in the works of the bibliography would surely assuage any BLP concerns one might have. Joe 04:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, that's fine, but if, hypothetically, those claims were untrue, it would be libel. This article cannot exist unless it is sourced. If you want to keep it, all you have to do is find sources for the claims in it. WP:V and WP:RS are fundamental content policies on Wikipedia ... this isn't a novel claim here. --BigDT 04:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Also, I don't see how the article is "negative in tone." Just because it mentions that he uses bodily fluids and masochism? Welcome to contemporary art. That's factual description, not judgmemental prescription. But I agree that it needs to be sourced. Aroundthewayboy 04:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep. It would be ludicrous to not have an article about Paul McCarthy. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, as sources are available to improve the article and the subject is without a doubt notable in his field. Yamaguchi先生 06:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, this is a key artist of his era. I have added a sourced reference to his use of bodily fluids in his work (I hope the New York Times suffices for reliability). Not mentioning the transgressive nature of his art is like not mentioning that George Bush is Republican. --Dhartung | Talk 07:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Amazon lists at least five books exclusively about him. Once I'm reunited with my books from last semester, I'll add what I have. Wickethewok 07:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I crossed my fingers hoping Wikipedia would catalogue information about contemporary artists, and was excited to find an entry on McCarthy. Perhaps not a fixture in our mainstream pop culture consciousness, McCarthy is still of great importance and value to interested students and others within the 'art world'. Whether or not the article is precicely accurate seems secondary, next to the earnest and competent insight it provides. Understandibly, this site operates on the assumption of varifiable information; let's hope this entry can therefore be varified for accuracy, rather than too hastily erased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.128.143 (talk • contribs)
- 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.
