Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. Andrew Gonzalez


 * 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   delete. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

A. Andrew Gonzalez

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Artist is not culturally significant; page originally created by artist's girlfriend Aletheia82 (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to call this a bad faith nomination. I can't verify the claim that the page was originally created by the artist's girlfriend, and the artist seems notable, but I can't verify all the references in the article due to NSFW content. I also find it suspicious that the AfD template was placed on the page by an IP, and the nom's first edit was to create the AfD discussion page. KuyaBriBri Talk 15:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was the original IP who nominated the page for deletion, but I created this account when I didn't seem able to add a reason for the nomination as an unregistered user. re: the girlfriend, she notes as much at http://heidiallen.com/rapidfire/2006/07/02/a-andrew-gonzalez-artist/ (this is where I found the initial link to the article, by the way).  The references given are all obscure sites--if any better sources exist, they should be cited instead.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aletheia82 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all "references" i clicked on linked to irrelevant links with no speak of the subject in question. not notable.  Rmzadeh  ►  15:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Even if these unsourced accusations are true, the source of the article is irrelevant. The artist is notable, and the article is only lacking a few inline citations. I find it even more suspicious that Aletheia82 is an account seemingly created only for this delete attempt. - JeffJonez (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You do realize that without any credible sources, the article Cannot be called notable right? Notability means significance coverage which means sources, the motives of the person electing the article is irrelevant. we are to assume good faith, the only matter is the quality of the article   Rmzadeh  ►  16:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I wrote that the artist is notable, which I based on the number of publications in which the artist has contributed. The article may not yet represent that notability in the opinion of some, but I believe that it is merely formatted poorly, contains some content that is currently unsourced, and in general needs a little TLC... not deletion - JeffJonez (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Jeff, the majority of the publications linked to no longer exist (three out of five lead to dead areas). Additionally, the quality of the publication should matter as well, no?  A small newsletter and a self-published magazine probably don't qualify for the Wikipedia notability standards, from what I understand of them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aletheia82 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I made it quite clear in my initial response to Kuyabribri that I created this account in order to provide a reason for the nomination (for what it's worth, I don't personally know either the artist/his girlfriend). I find it a little curious that you don't perceive a conflict of interest in the article's creator re: the artist's significance, but you seem to see one in my account having nominated the article for deletion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aletheia82 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If your claim is true, it's not automatically a conflict of interest if the article is notable and reflects a neutral point of view. What I find suspicious is that you either have chosen not to stake your reputation as a wikipedian on this effort, or that you have no previous experience editing here. - JeffJonez (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The claim on the website you linked proves nothing. That blog post was added in July 2006. I cannot find any indication that an article on this individual existed on Wikipedia until September 2006. Regardless, we can't prove is Heidi Allen without using CheckUser, and I don't believe we can justify using CU in this case. Frankly, the original author's identity is irrelevant and should be disregarded, as COI on its own is not grounds for deletion. Notability, on the other hand, is grounds for deletion, and this discussion should focus on that. I will not make a judgment on notability until I can check the sources with NSFW content. KuyaBriBri Talk 16:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've validated the links in the "other media" section, which do speak to notability. Many of them were suffering from link rot, and simply needed to reflect target site redesigns. - JeffJonez (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is Heidi Allen (Puroprana). A couple of points:


 * 1) I am A. Andrew Gonzalez's girlfriend. However, I did not create this Wikipedia entry.


 * 2) A. Andrew Gonzalez is definitely culturally significant within the visionary art movement. If you follow the movement, you've heard of him and are probably familiar with his work.


 * A little elaboration:


 * When I originally came across this entry, it was a stub, and there was a request for an editor to work on it. I was already a Wikipedia editor, and had access to the necessary information, so it seemed like a natural fit.


 * That was some time ago. I hadn't worked on the entry since then, although other editors have. I've just now finished an update to include more recent publications and to delete the section that listed some of his art shows.


 * The updated Publications and Other Media sections should provide ample evidence of Mr. Gonzalez's significance as a visionary artist. My relationship to him has no bearing on the information that's presented there.


 * On a side note, I've left the Children of God information as it is, other than correcting some spelling errors. I'm not familiar with the Children of God, and the editor who created that portion of the entry clearly is. Puroprana (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Question any reviews? any work in museums? any solo exhibitions in major venues? any works in major juried exhibitions? any prizes? sand, any sources for the analysis in the Paintings section? I recognize that some of this is unlikely for new artistic movements, but we do have to wait until someone outside Wikipedia recognizes them.DGG (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your questions. I've created a new 'Shows, Exhibitions, Collections, Prizes' section. I've also added two links to analyses of Gonzalez's work in the 'Paintings' section. (I'll change the title of that section to 'Technique & Influences' once I'm done writing this, to better reflect the section's focus.) I do want to note that, although Gonzalez has won top prize at juried exhibitions at the past, artists tend to stop entering juried exhibitions once their careers reach a certain level. Just the same, I did include the references in my update. In hindsight, I'm glad this entry was challenged, because it's now much stronger, more focused and readable. :) Puroprana (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Notability has not been established. Fails WP:ARTIST. Article is also not written in an encyclopedic tone, rather it is more like what I would expect on a personal website. لenna  vecia  21:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.