Talk:Horatio Holzbein

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

REFERENCE SPEEDY DELETE TAG: I seemed to have this problem with the last artist stub I submitted. This artist is a winner of a major award and a person who is gaining notoriety as a commentator who bridges the worlds of investment finance and arts. As a lecturer in the visual arts, I can confirm that that combination is indeed a rare 'commodity' and therefore notable. Artmaid (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Artmaid

"A major award" is vanity-fluff language. What award did he win? We need specifics, with solid references, in order to put any credence in this kind of assertion. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

REFERENCE: REMOVAL OF 'PEACOCK LANGUAGE' TAG. Apologies for not being aware that the main article could be tagged for the use of a word in the discussion page. The 'offending' word seems to have been the adjective 'major' in the description 'major award', which appeared only in the discussion page and not in the main article.
I have removed the tag because, while it is true to suggest that the word 'major' is possibly a subjective term, I believe that it has commonly understood values in everyday English language usage, particularly in the sphere of the arts. In this case, a 'major' award could be understood to be (a) an award issued to national or international candidates (as opposed to regional or local, which would normally be described as either a minor award or simply an 'award'). (b) An established award that could reasonably expected to be in the public consciousness (i.e. the Turner artprize, etc).
It is my view that the award mentioned in this article meets criteria (a) above, since it is clearly awarded to candidates at an international level. I have studied the article again for other possible candidates for the 'peacock language' tag and come to the conclusion that only the word 'exclusive' could be additionally misinterpreted in this way. However, far from being subjective, it is my view that in this context, this adjective is simply a statement of fact. All prizes awarded by selection are intrinsically 'exclusive' because they 'exclude' those not selected. This is particularly true of the Lantilly award (mentioned and referenced in the article) because it is not an open competition and candidates are nominated and selected by committee.Artmaid (talk) 07:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Artmaid
REFERENCE: REMOVAL OF REFIMPROVE TAG. I'm not sure whether this tag was put in place on the basis of the information provided on the discussion page or in the article itself as I have already provided links to articles from which the principle claims of this article were made. However, as soon as I get a spare minute I will try to improve the references with as much additional information as I can, i.e. the date of publication etc. Please be patient.Artmaid (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Artmaid

The artist has won an award, which although not hugely significant, is described by artdaily.org as an invitation only event [1], so the article might just squeak through an AfD. But apart from a statement to the press about the contemporary art market [2], this seems to be the extent of the coverage afforded the artist. The claims in the lead that he "is known for his controversial campaigns for greater financial transparency in the art market, particularly in the gallery sector. He has also lead notable campaigns against the factors which are believed help to create art market investment bubbles," misrepresents his importance. The claims should be removed as peacock language.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)