User talk:Daniel C. Boyer/Archive 5


 * Move vote and some discussion to Talk:Daniel C. Boyer/vote


 * Koyaanis and Jwrosenweig didn't use the magic D word, that's why I didn't count them in category 3. I missed someone else accidentally. Anyway, I won't count anyone below if their vote is unclear. People who are voting for "keep" are not saying that the article should be protected forever, editing is expected. Their opinions, therefore, are pretty much the same as mine or any of the other users in favour of keeping. In other words, I was categorising everyone on the basis of their preferences: (This is also Tim Starling)

Category 1


 * 1) Delete
 * 2) *Keep & edit as usual
 * 3) *Keep and redirect or greatly reduce
 * 1) *Keep and redirect or greatly reduce

Category 2


 * 1) *Keep & edit as usual
 * 2) *Keep & redirect or greatly reduce
 * 3) Delete

Category 3


 * 1) Keep & redirect or greatly reduce
 * 2) Delete
 * 3) Keep & edit as usual

Bullets indicate that the category may be split as to which one of the pair is better.

-- Tim Starling 09:28, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)


 * verifiability of review to Talk:Daniel C. Boyer/Discussion over the content
 * suggestion to move to user: -> Talk:Daniel C. Boyer/move to user:
 * suggestion to rewrite for more proportionality of coverage : -> Talk:Daniel C. Boyer/Article size proportional to fame
 * List by Kat of Daniel published works and description ->Talk:Daniel C. Boyer/Published works

What should we do?
Seeing as this has been listed for deletion for more than a week, and the offical vote is in favor of deletion, could someone other than me delete this page? There is really little point in continuing arguing about this particlular page. Let us delete this page and move onto the next. MB 15:40, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't see how the vote is in favour of deletion - I see 12 for deletion, 10 against deletion, one with mixed views and 6 to keep if it's rewritten (which to some degree at least it has been). --Camembert


 * Camembert, I see your point, but it seems to me that, regardless of what election system we propose using (first-past-the-post or runoff), MB is probably right. First-past-the-post would give the deletions the victory with a plurality of votes.  If we decided to run off, I couldn't speak for other "severe rewrite or deletes", but in the absence of a severe rewrite, I imagine most if not all of us would choose deletion.  I've not been here long enough to know how contentious issues like this one are settled (and I certainly am not a strong advocate for deletion), but the vote seems tilted towards deletion, and the debate has lasted for what seems (to me at least) a reasonable time.  Just my two cents -- Jwrosenzweig 17:30, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * My apologies. I've just viewed the article again (wow, there were some radical changes since the last time I looked), and it's been severely rewritten enough that I think I'd side with the keep crowd in the case of a runoff.  Of course, the thing about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit that article back up to a level I'd be uncomfortable with, but at the point of this time-stamped entry, anyway, I wouldn't support deletion.  (I think this goes to show that, the longer an issue is discussed at Wikipedia, the more confusing the discussions will become. :) ) Sorry for the contradicting entries. Jwrosenzweig 17:39, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Heh, it's a confusing issue for most of us I think :) To the best of my knowledge, there hasn't been such a contentious disagreement over whether to delete a page or not before, so there isn't really a precedent. Voting hasn't been much used as a decision making tool on the Wikipedia, and it's something people have very mixed views about - I know I'm not alone in finding "votes" like the above useful in assessing where general opinion lies on an issue, while at the same time being uncomfortable with using it as final arbiter on decision making (though of course, it's much easier to hold this view when the vote isn't going the way you want it to ;-).


 * Anyway, Rednblu might be right that some sort of standard about this would be good. Somebody has started Criteria for inclusion of biographies, so people might want to have a look at that and try to get something going there, and there's also something on this at the end of Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Camembert 18:54, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * And there's Wikipedia talk:Auto-biography, too. Sorry if it's been mentioned before, this discussion is getting difficult to follow. Kosebamse 20:38, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Voting method discussion

 * Just to support Camembert regards votes - I've been reminded often enough that Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchism... and that's true. Also, Wikipedia is not an experiment in participative democracy. All votes are opinion polls - it's just more obvious with some.
 * In cases where there's a close outcome, especially in cases like this one where neither side has a clear majority, we can't just ride roughshod over dissenting voices - we need to find a compromise, or a way out of the impasse. Martin 21:15, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * compromise move -> Talk:Daniel C. Boyer/move to user:

While the votes for a rewrite (and have not changed to keep/delete) I assume the people involved do not believe the article has changed sufficiently to warrant a change in votes. However the votes is close enough that I'd feel uncomfortable using it to make a decision one way or the other, perhaps this is an issue we should just get Jimbo to decide on one way or the other. --Imran 21:56, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I would have thought that a severe rewrite or redirect would be a solution satisfying both the "keep" camp and the "rewrite/redirect" camp, therefore it would be appropriate to add the two categories together. Declaring that it was an FPTP vote seems unfair at this point. If you declare it FPTP, but allow people to change their votes in view of this fact, then it becomes essentially a preferential vote anyway because I would expect people in the "keep" category will change to the "rewrite/redirect" category in the hopes of a compromise. I certainly would. Such a policy would just mean we have to go through the rigmarole of contacting everyone again.


 * It should be noted that the vote was only an informal one due to the lack of predetermined rules. The final decision must still be a consensus. However, I'm prepared to respect the outcome of the vote, and I hope everyone else is too. -- Tim Starling 00:19, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)


 * Actually, at least 4 of the rewrite votes would not be satisfied with the current version. GWO said "keep, but leave in little doubt to readers that Boyer is an extremely obscure figure, and that his invented techniques and vanity-published books are neither important or influential in the artworld."  And most of the rewrite votes are agreeing with GWO.  So, you can't simply add them together.


 * Why the hell not? I don't follow this line of argument at all.  User:GWO


 * In fact, once a rewrite like this is done, the article is practically useless except for slander, so I would argue that these votes should be added to the delete votes ;). MB 15:45, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)


 * Well, slander would imply untrue, which would imply that Boyer isn't extremely obscure. But, its pretty clear that he is. So, to be honest,  I resent the implication that I'm slandering Boyer. If Boyer doesn't like an article that accurately represents his position in the grand scheme of things, I'm sure there'd be no complaints if he deleted it himself. -- User:GWO
 * This is way off the point in any analysis as to whether this is slander or no. The subjective nature of someone or something being "extremely obscure" makes such a statement one of opinion and not of fact (there is no scientific measurement on the obscurity/fame scale), so defamation law does not come into play.  --Daniel C. Boyer 20:07, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * OK, slander was a bad choice of wording, but you get my point. The article would be pointless to keep if it said "he is not important at all, blah blah blah."  Your vote was not just to keep the current article.  It was to make it into a pointless and worthless article.  I'm not arguing that the last non-redirect version wasn't pointless and worthless, but it would be much more obvious with your proposed rewrite.  So if we did follow through with such a rewrite, it would once again be listed of VfD, b/c the subject matter does no warrent an article.  MB 18:02, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)


 * Lack of a uniform measurement system does not mean something cannot be measured without resorting to opinion. For instance you could do it in terms of readership, citation, etc. For instance in terms of readership, which quartile do you think you fall compared to other surrealist authors ? --Imran 22:11, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * I would be much surprised if it is not the bottom quartile. But since my principal activity has been in visual art rather than in writing, I would question how significant this is.  Moreover, you are missing my very limited point, which is just about defamation law.  People, please do not add extrinsic "implications" to a very limited argument I am making.  I was only saying that GWO's statement was not slander as it was expression of opinion and not of fact.  I wasn't saying I'm not obscure!  I wasn't saying I am obscure.  That was the one and only thing I was saying!  --Daniel C. Boyer 19:12, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

This is obviously generic enough an issue to warrant autobiography. See my comments there.

What's going on? Why has it been deleted? -- Tim Starling 03:25, Aug 6, 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't know, but I just restored the page. Jtdirl - why did you delete the page? Our policy on the matter clearly favors keeping a redirect and there was far from a supermajority in favor of deletion (14-10 in favor of deletion and 7 saying that a major re-write was in order). --mav 03:57, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, I was cleaning out some stuff to make room, then had second thoughts about that one and thought that I had misinterpreted the results but I couldn't access the undelete page to do anything about it - or any other page for that matter. I don't whether it was wiki (again) or my net link but for the last ages everything has been v e   r     y       v      e      r      y      slow! (In fact if I hadn't tried again and this time got on Allah be praised (opps. Shouldn't have said that. RK will be pissed) I would be gone to bed by now. Sorrreee. FearÉIREANN 04:33, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * discussion of redirects -> Talk:Daniel C. Boyer/redirect


 * stuff moved to Talk:Daniel C. Boyer/move to user:

Right, now that the page we are discussing is once again properly attached to the page where we are discussing it, on with the discussion... As I understand it, the main argument against the article is that Daniel C. Boyer is obscure. Well, although this isn't much of a counterargument, it might be worth pointing out that I've seen several people more obscure than Mr. Boyer sit around on VfD for a week, and end up being kept. Although I'd never heard of Mr. Boyer before I came here, I understand from the above that he's not completely obscure. Camembert says, "it seems perfectly possible to me, given the scope of his exhibiting, that Boyer passes the 1000 person test." The 1000 person thing is only an informal criterion for inclusion, as far as I know, but it's enough for me. I consider the talk about self-promotion to be irrelevant, if we implement the proposed policy to stop people from editing articles about themselves. See Wikipedia talk:Auto-biography for my views on that. The article has already been chopped down by other people so extensively that it is a mere shadow of its former self, so it can hardly be called a vehicle for self-promotion any more. So I really don't see the problem with it. And although I always seem to vote in them, I don't really take our votes very seriously. We should decide individual cases based on policy, and decide policy based on rational argument and consensus. -- Oliver P. 00:57, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Just regarding that last sentence: it's a bit hard to set a policy on these matters because there is a small class of articles which polarise the community. Everyone seems to have their place on this Wikipedian political spectrum -- everyone has different ideas on Wikipedia's target breadth and respectability. For example, I always seem to end up arguing for inclusion, whereas Daniel Quinlan wants quality not quantity. The 1000 person test is difficult to apply and open to interpretation. If you can come up with an unambiguous policy which will satisfy everyone, I'll be surprised. Pleasantly suprised, but surprised nonetheless. -- Tim Starling 01:34, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

--

More obscure
Out of interest which entries are more unimportant/obscure ? (said anon)


 * You'll find an interesting selection at September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/Casualties. Including a few under-fives, whose major achievements include being born, gurgling a bit, and dying. Martin 17:52, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I believe that most of the individual articles had been moved to http://sep11.wikipedia.org/. Mentioning an individual on a list on a page is much different from having an article on them, and given the importance of the event of 9/11 the individuals involved gain importance. --Imran 18:16, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Nope - 'fraid not. Many still have individual articles, and only a few were ever moved over, AFAIK - those who only had tributes. Martin

There are two ways to select new things to write about: top down and bottom up. The "top-down" approach is an attempt at completeness, where users start with broad categories and drill down, and also write lists and work through them systematically. The 9/11 casualties are an example of that. The "bottom-up" approach is where a person contributes very specific knowledge, that only a small part of the community is interested in. For example, a person writes about their home town or suburb, their favorite computer game, or even themselves. Unlike a conventional encyclopedia where only the top-down approach is appreciated, both approaches are valued in this encyclopedia. This is because our large pool of editors means that the bottom-up approach can yield significant amounts of useful information.

If you want entries which are similar in importance to this article, you should look for other ones created in the bottom-up style. For example, Ebor. They're hard to find because they're poorly organised. -- Tim Starling 00:18, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)


 * We recall also that Formeruser:Isis made herself a "name" here. Everybody's hit the nail on the head -- all different nails--but all these different nails are in the same direction. The real issue is formal policy vs informal policy. Are we going to make it policy that noone can make a page talking about themselves?

Think of it the other way around -- Imagine if *everyone made their own page, and there was a page for everything truthful, real, and imagined. Isnt this eventually the goal of something that tries to be all encomassing? Then the issue becomes granularity -- whether material belongs on a more general article or on own. Its tacky to toot ones own horn -- but I dont see how we can deal with these things on a 1:1 basis -- either we formalize policy or were stuck with whatever we dont rule out. If this is a "rule out" vote -- this need to be generalized to a Wiki policy page. Consider the two points of view: ["Wikipedia should not be an advertising vehicle for obscure and relatively unknown individuals to self-promote." "Keep, wikipedia is not paper. I believe that Boyer is a real person... the problem is the obscurity, not the non-factuality."] Both of these are very strong arguments -- What then is the prevailing underlying principle for each side -- so we can boil it down to something repeatable? - &#25140;&#30505sv 01:10, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

Similar Pages
Will Jen Besemer, Ronnie Burk and Franklin Rosemont also be deleted? They seem comparable to this to me (except that the persons themselves haven't edited them, but maybe that's the point...). I don't like this being redirected, by the way - either the guy should have an article or he shouldn't (I don't see any reason why he shouldn't) - as such I've put the article back. --Camembert

Franklin Rosemont should be kept, he seems to be a relevant figure in American Surrealism. The other two should be deleted.


 * I don't see why. Just because they don't seem relevant or interesting to you, doesn't mean they're not relevant or interesting to everybody. --Camembert


 * They're irrelevant to virtually everyone, that's why. Are you arguing absolutely every person can have an article? If not, tell us your standard and show how those persons meet it. --Wik 14:27, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)


 * No, that's not what I'm arguing - I'm arguing that just because people are irrelevant to "virtually everyone" doesn't mean they shouldn't get articles. Lots of people (particle physicists, 16th century priests, chess problem composers) are irrelevant to "virtually everyone", but that doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't have an article. If you want criteria for inclusion... well, I'm making this up off the top of my head, but how about verifiabilty of facts, and an interest in the person by somebody not personally known to them (difficult to prove this, I know, but it seems a good guiding principal to me). --Camembert


 * Franklin Rosemont seems to be fairly well known, and his books seem widely available so I have no problem with him being included. Ronnie Burk is very border-line, with the only prominent incident apparently involving him being his assault on Pat Christen. As for Jen Besemer I can find little to no evidence of any interest in her, either within her specialism or outside it. --Imran

While I have nothing more to say about the Boyer page, we seem to have moved to another topic. I had seen the pages in question (Jen Besemer, Ronnie Burk and Franklin Rosemont) before and must admit to a degree of concern because they are stubs and because it is not clear whether they are encylopedic. The standard alternatives thus apply: allow time to see whether they become more than just stubs, consider redirecting to and merging with the logical parent topic (American Surrealism, I suppose) so as to have one good article rather than many stubby ones, or delete. I am unfamiliar with these topics, and so would be inclined to defer to Imran's judgement. -- Kat 15:12, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

What about Easter Bradford? RickK 03:04, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

--

Self-submission
Keep, wikipedia is not paper. I believe that Boyer is a real person, doing real artwork cf. ,, , -- and also Boyers own page, ) -- the problem is the  obscurity, not the non-factuality. And that is only a problem if the article is massive linked and/or if spce is severly limited. -- till we *) 23:53, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)


 * Uh, there are dozens of such sites, all of which Boyer himself has submitted his material to. No proof of significance whatsoever.


 * General comment on how it works in art (for offline as well as online exhibitions) (with exception of invitationals, which I've only been in one of): the artist himself has to send out slides, or submit work digitally. No website, no gallery, no exhibition, and very few publications, are going to go door-to-door: "Do you have any art you'd like to show at our gallery?  Do you have any art you'd like to post on our website?  Do you have any art you'd like to submit to our publication?"  I'd be most gratified if anyone can point out to me what is the significance of an artist "himself... [submitting] material to" something.  --Daniel C. Boyer 16:34, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Nah -- I don't want to start a discussion here (in a voting list), but at least and  don't look like self-contributions, but rather like small artistic communities, magazines, what-evers, that display Boyers work.  And I also believe that the list of exhibitions on his website at  is genuine and not a fake. So I come to the conclusion, that Boyer is a real, living artist, but indeed a rather obscure one (like most real, living artists). I see problems in self-promoting via wikipedia, but I don't believe we should exclude artists because of not being famous. -- till we *) 00:16, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)