Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Contemporary Artists A-Z


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  14:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

100 Contemporary Artists A-Z

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails book notability, as it lacks two in-depth sources. I removed a source for the independent that was trivial, but more importantly for a different book. I also removed 'sources' by Amazon, Goodreads and Book Depository, who are not RS. Search turned up nothing more than promotional blurbs and book seller sites. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Satisfies GNG and NBOOK. There is other coverage: . Multiple book reviews: International Journal of Baudrillard Studies (from Bishop's University) and ABC News . This book is widely held by 317 libraries: . This is a trilingual book (written in English, German and French) from Germany. Its German and French names are "100 zeitgenössische künstler" and "100 artistes contemporains". A search for German and French language sources is in order. Deletion would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R because this could be merged and redirected to Taschen or to the Art Now or Art at the Turn of the Millenium series, from which the artists were taken, or to Hans Werner Holzwarth. James500 (talk) 06:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The sources you give above are very poor. A Worldcat entry showing lots of libraries have it is of no use for notability, the ABC news list of coffee table books to buy is minor coverage, and the Baudrillard Journal, while it is good coverage. is in such a tiny fringe publication that i wonder if it matters at all. The lack of good sources that you've demonstrated is why I nominated it. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 11:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources are excellent. An academic journal published by a university is one of the best possible sources and one of the strongest possible forms of evidence of notability. It is a gold standard source. GNG is only interested in the quality of sources and does not have an "anti-monograph" clause. Being widely held by libraries indicates that the book is popular and therefore notable. James500 (talk) 05:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You have one decent source, a Baudrillard journal from a small university. Show others. I can see you are deeplycommited tokeeping this coffee table book, this, so I won't reply further.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * delete as there's no claim to notability. I't unremarkable that someone should review a coffee table art book, and, well, this is a coffee table art book, one of many published in a year. Mangoe (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * (1) Neither GNG nor NBOOK requires that coverage be of a form that is rare. That is simply not a valid argument. The presence of book reviews is one of the main and best tests for the notability of books. In any event, I am under the impression that the overwhelming vast majority of books have never been reviewed at all, so getting a book review actually is remarkable, even if that did matter, which it doesn't. (2) Likewise, the relevant notability guidelines do not require that a topic be rare either. So that is not a valid argument either. In any event, there is no evidence that "many" other coffee table art books have achieved the level of coverage or circulation that this one has, so there is no evidence that there are "many" others, even if that did matter, which it doesn't. James500 (talk) 05:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but it does not change the fact that the subject lacks sources to establish notability. The examples you have given so far is very weak sourcing. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability entirely obvious. Bus stop (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Keep because many of the artists mentioned in the book may themselves be notable. Reference books like this that contain information about notable artists and from major publishers should get an immediate pass. It would be helpful if the article listed the artists. I did a quick search and here are just a few of the notable artists: Jean-Michel Basquiat, Marlene Dumas, Damien Hirst, Mike Kelley (artist), Jeff Koons. That was the first five I looked and all had WP entries. Auldhouse (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That completely ignores WP:NOTINHERITED. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * —WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:CONSENSUS is what matters here. It is not the notability of the artists contained in the book that confers notability on the book. It is simply the fact that artists are contained in the book—notable or not—and it is from a major publisher and the book is stocked by many libraries and the book is published in multiple languages and Wikipedia is interested in covering art. Bus stop (talk) 02:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That completely ignores WP:NOTINHERITED. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * —I am not basing notability on any notability of artists as might be contained in the book therefore it is completely baffling to me that you say "That completely ignores WP:NOTINHERITED". My argument above was that the non-notable artists as might be found in the book contribute as much to the notability of the book as the notable artists. Bus stop (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * —do we have policies on "coffee table art book[s]"? Wouldn't "art" and "artists" be subject areas Wikipedia tries to cover? The book is published by a major publisher, is held by many libraries, and published in English, German, and French. Bus stop (talk) 13:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Two sentences in a list of coffee table books is not significant coverage. (For the art lovers in us all, there's "100 Contemporary Artists," a comprehensive study of contemporary art at the beginning of the 21st century. At 704 pages, it's nearly 12 pounds of art for your viewing pleasure.) Online stores like artbook.com are not reliable sources,m so that leaves only blackcube. That's not enough to meet the GNG. Per WP:NBOOK:
 * The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. ❌
 * The book has won a major literary award.❌
 * The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. ❌
 * The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools,[6] colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country. ❌
 * The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. ❌

Vexations (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The author or editor, Hans Werner Holzwarth, has written books on Jean-Michel Basquiat, Ai Weiwei, Darren Almond and Christopher Wool. Also they have written "Modern Art 1870-2000: Impressionism to Today" and a 4 volume set called "Art Now!" Perhaps the inapplicable number 5 is applicable. Given that we have articles on Abandoned footwear and Mike the Headless Chicken perhaps we can have articles on books about contemporary art or articles on galleries of contemporary art. But that is not a valid argument because wp:other stuff exists would invalidate that argument. Bus stop (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a bit of a stretch. Holzwarth is not so historically significant that you can invoke NBOOK#5. We don't even have an article about him. I can think of a few art critics: Anything written by Baudelaire is pretty much notable, or anything written by Diderot, or perhaps Guillaume Apollinaire. But not this author. Vexations (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Charles Baudelaire, Denis Diderot, and Guillaume Apollinaire didn't write about the art produced from the mid-twentieth century onward, which might be called contemporary art. Bus stop (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Good grief, Bus stop. They're the art critics I could think of that are so notable that anything they write is also notable. I couldn't think of any critic of contemporary art from whom that would be true. I don't think that there are any. You've done nothing to establish that Holzwarth is even notable, let alone "so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable". I gave you examples of people who do meet that criterion to give you an idea of what kind of people are covered by NBOOK#5. That they wrote about -their- contemporaries, not ours, is irrelevant. I meant to show you that there are such people, but that Holzwarth isn't one of them. Surely we can agree that the three I mentioned are much more "historically significant" than Holzwarth. Your proposal to apply criterion #5 is against established consensus. Meta: This part of the discussion should really be hatted.


 * There is no reason that I can think of that the patina of age should be a notability criteria. Flawed people lived 100 years ago and sharp people live today. Additionally the art of 100 years ago is different from the art of today. The fact that Hans Werner Holzwarth has written many books about contemporary art suggests that they may be "historically significant", but obviously of a more shallow "history" than Charles Baudelaire, Denis Diderot, and Guillaume Apollinaire. I don't think this part of the discussion should be hatted. Bus stop (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete I really wanted to save this article, and just bought the book from Amazon because it was highly reviewed and looks like a great gift for my art loving mother-in-law, but I just can't find any media coverage, besides the blurb from ABC that's in the article already. Fails WP:GNG. This reminds me of 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die, but with a few major differences. That article has a Publisher's Weekly review, and the book is filled with reviews by notable critics. Also, over 700 album articles link to the 1001 Albums book - yet not one of the articles of artists featured in this book link to this article. I'll be getting the book tomorrow and will see if there are any reviews on the slipcovers, or anything else that might move the needle, but for now sadly this is a delete. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  01:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * update - I got the book - it's a hefty two volume set that's shrinkwrapped in a cardboard sleeve, but since it's a gift I can't take it out to review - so no change. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  18:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The first week was mostly "keep"; the second mostly "delete". I'm not comfortable closing as anything at the mo, so can we have more views?
 * Delete I am not seeing significant independent coverage in secondary sources. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - fails the GNG, which demands detailed coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. The first week not-voters did not provide such sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I think James500's remark way up top is essentially correct. A scholarly reference and decent library holdings add up to a case for preserving the content. Merging to the publisher would be a viable way to do so. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * XOR&#39;easter, for my own edification, could you point to where Library holdings are stated as a notability criteria? Lots of libraries have hold copies of a particular cookbook or novel, but that does not necessarily mean a particular book is notable. For example, Worldcat says "Hand tool basics : woodworking tools & how to use them" is held by 144 libraries. If someone mentions it in a scholarly journal for a few sentences, does it become notable? ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Looking at library holdings might be legitimate to get a clue to importance/popularity but it does nothing to substantiate notability.  The idea that deleting this somehow harms our coverage of art is nonsense.  This is a book about art, it is not art itself.  Our coverage of the substantive topic remains intact.  There are many such books, not all of them are going to be notable.  It would be better used as a reference to the artists' articles rather than as a basis for an article on itself. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 11:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

<ul><li>Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.<ol> <li> The review notes: "Hans Werner Holzwarth’s book: 100 Contemporary Artists, presents us with a vivid illustration (without the author intending one) of Baudrillard’s notion of a conspiracy in contemporary art. It is worth revisiting Baudrillard’s essay before examining this book more closely. Along with Holzwarth I also examine Anne Ellegood et. al., Vitamin 3-D: New Perspectives in Contemporary Sculpture ... ... In terms of representing artists who produce banality I think it fair to say that the book does a marvelous job (without of course, intending to) and this is ironically, its great strength. Among the more banal works included are Franz Ackermann’s post Warholian understanding of painting meets tourism (the real can be very punishing even to a painter of talent). Cai Guo-Qiang’s spectacle’s, George Condo’s caricatures, John Curran’s figures, [long list of artists and their works], each are left to stand in for art which has lost the desire for illusion. Everywhere the real punishes and obliterates an art that desires only it. ... ... Perhaps if Holzwarth et. al. were given more time and freedom by their editors, a more in-depth analysis of these artists (and others) who resist the conspiracy of art, might have produced the book readers deserve rather than a catalogue of trends. Critical judgment is out of vogue but it is still possible – the problem is, in the era of the mega-art book aimed at the most democratic cross section of consumers possible (what we also know to be the lowest common denominator), most of the books we meet concerning contemporary art in the new mega-bookstore are interested in fashion rather than analysis. ... ...  Instead of any significant analysis or development of a critical position we are given a one paragraph long vague introduction to each artist, which often in a full blaze of conspiracy, self-reference the art world which has established these artists as its key trend makers. That said, given the state of affairs and the competition which Taschen faces, and for all of its problems, this book is a sincere effort to identify the leading trends. What is not engaged is the problem of seeking trends over depth."</li> <li> http://toutelaculture.com/auteurs/WebCite lists Yael Hirsch, a journalist, doctor of political science, and lecturer at Sciences Po as a co-editor. It also lists Amelie Blaustein Niddam, a journalist and doctor of history as a deputy editor. This demonstrates that Tout La Culture has editorial oversight. From Google Translate: "In a box of 2 volumes and some 700 pages, 100 Contemporary Artists from Taschen publishes a selective panorama of the artists considered as major on the international scene of the last 20 years. The inevitable (Jeff Koons, Matthew Barney, Cindy Sherman, Takashi Murakami, Nan Goldin or Thomas Hirschhorn ...), neighboring with less known artists, some very exciting. The worst is next to the best, reflecting the immense diversity of approaches, themes and materials / mediums. ... Behind the flashy kitschy and industrialized kitsch of Jeff Koons or Takashi Murakami, other artists demonstrate such prodigious inanity that one remains amazed by the capacity for endorsement and justification. The texts are sometimes superbly laughable, for example when one of the authors speaks of 'inverting the relationship sculpture / pedestal' for Franz West, or when another evokes a mysterious 'thorny question of the relationship between sculpture and his pedestal ' for Erwin Wurm ... Or again, this delicious passage: ...  In short, the best and the worst are mixed together in this confused boiling of forms and words, which is difficult not to describe as that of our uncertain time, and which is also translated into politics. From this uncertainty and the preoccupations of the time, the plurality of the approaches outlined in 100 Contemporary Artists is fully recognizable. Sometimes real successes, real artistic achievements, sometimes the feeling that expanding the possibilities of art, by expanding it, leads to 'works' that are in fact only the worst of lazy people renouncing the implementation of their ideas in an accomplished form, whether it was romantic, pictorial, photographic or even journalistic."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow 100 Contemporary Artists A-Z to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 05:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Notability (books) notes: "A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:<ol><li>The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.</li></ol>" The book passes Notability (books) because it has received two significant reviews. Cunard (talk) 05:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment even if GNG is met by the very low standard of two reviews as the multiple "sources", the last comment leaves out the part of GNG that says "notability is presumed to be met" rather than automaticlally met, and that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." We have no need of an article on a book that we can only find two equivocal reviews for. That a tiny journal and a minor French blog mentioned this book is not that a strong argument for keeping it. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.