Talk:Antoine Schneck

Clear COI
An editor is exclusively editing this page, and the French Wikipedia version of this article. On their talk page in the French Wiki they state "Je ne suis pas sûre que ce soit le lieu pour vous répondre, mais j'essaie! Antoine Schneck est mon compagnon. J'ai modifié les informations sur wikipedia avec son autorisation.", which is basically they're the article subject's partner and have their permission to edit it. Canterbury Tail talk 22:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello again,
 * Is there anything else which I can do for the COI warning to be removed.
 * The information published on the English site is supported by public articles and other websites. What difference would it make if the artist paid a third party to write the same?
 * Thank you in advance for removing the warning, as the artist can no longer insert the wikipedia link in his communication.
 * Regards,
 * Emmanuelle 80.214.151.4 (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The COI warning will not be removed as it's clear there's a COI in it. And your comment just goes to prove it. Wikipedia is not a source that people can use in their advertising, we're not here to promote artists. And saying you'll pay a third party to write the article is even worse. We're not here as the artist's personal advertising/resume space. All details are in WP:COI. Canterbury Tail talk 13:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'm not sure where to reply to your comment. Frankly how am I supposed to edit the text if you have blocked me? You mention it is advertising so I guess what you deem acceptable is the name of a book without a reference to a site where one can buy it but with a reference to a public article about this book to prove it exists. Do I understand what you deem being information but not advertising? Emmencyclopédie (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you have any suggestions on edits to the article, as an editor with a COI (that still hasn't been properly declared) you can make suggestions on this talk page. And the entire article was basically a resume for the subject, not an encyclopaedia article and as a result an advert for them. Canterbury Tail talk
 * I really don't see what concern it is for Wikipedia that the artist can't use the Wikipedia link in their communications. Tarnis<b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 11:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's no concern of ours, but just highlights why COI editors are maintaining the article. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 12:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The lead is the only place with any prose. And it uses primary sources only. The first one is a catalog by the publisher (and the publisher brags they are very good at promoting books that publish through them). Correct me if I am wrong. The second one is dead. The lead also happens to be the only place that makes any claim of significance. An artist can be presumed to be notable by the significance of their exhibitions, even if they are somewhat lacking in sourcing. Even so, we still need one or two independent, reliable, secondary sources to say who the subject is and what he does. As a new article, this would not stand a chance. Given that it's not new, and there are already multiple eyes on it, hopefully some with more familiarity with the field and the language, I have elected to tag it for excessive reliance on primary sources. I would advise the COI contributors to find some secondary sourcing and propose changes to the article supported by them. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Reference
This was added, but removed by myself as part of reverting COI, as a reference. Not sure how usable it is. Seems like a fluff piece. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 12:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Exhibitions and "Selected Works"
Regarding exhibitions, ideally we should be listing the significant ones as identified by reliable secondary sources. It does not appear that that's what we are doing. As a compromise, I suggest that editors familiar with the topic use editorial judgement to remove entries that are not of significance, if any.

As for "Selected Works", first of all, is that list actually selected or is it just "all works" presented as selected works? If it was selected for by using some criteria, what were those? Again, ideally, we ought to defer to independent secondary sourcing to determine which works are significant enough to be "selected". A distant second choice is editorial judgement from independent editors familiar with the field.

In either case, we ought not to allow the representatives of the subject to maintain lists such as those, in contravention of WP:NOT. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)