Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Thomas White


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Anthony Thomas White
nonnotable "artist" (the quotes are deliberate, look at the alleged art on his website) NawlinWiki 12:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: this AfD has been included on WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts -- Tyrenius 00:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - notability not established. Colon el Tom 13:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, nonnotable per artist guidelines in WP:BIO. -- Docether 13:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. DarthVad e r 13:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, good luck to him but fails WP:BIO. - Motor (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Insulting someone's work by putting "artist" in quotes isn't really necessary in an AFD. Please remember that these pages get archived for eternity. What are your credentials for deriding someone's work as "alleged art"? This is hardly very different from the thousand numbers currently on sale for around $600 each, for which about 500 have been sold in about a week. Your personal tastes should have no bearing in an AFD. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk   (RFC)  14:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My "credentials" are that I have eyes and discretion, and scrawling numbers on construction paper is something kindergarden kids do before nap time; we don't hang those up in art galleries either. (For that matter, debate over someone's personal tastes, and their right or lack of right to have them, scarcely belongs in an AfD either.)  Delete the heck out of this, per nom.  Ravenswing 18:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, we do put them in galleries, and I'm glad Kline or Pollock didn't have you as their agent, dismissing their work as kindergarden scrawls. But the point of my comment was that AFD should not be a place to insult the subject of the article, particularly if the subject is a living person. There have been numberous cases brought to Jimbo because of living people discovering that one of their first Google-hits is some insult on AFD (e.g. , ), something Jimbo refered to as a "sickness in the process". &mdash; Asbestos | Talk   (RFC)  19:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Possibly the likes of Pollock and Kline would have been glad as well, given that I believe their efforts to have been tripe. That being said, before we have whitewashers and spin doctors suitably sanitizing AfD discussions so that no one could ever, ever fancy themselves disparaged, I'd far sooner purge AfD of the knee-jerk editors who vote without ever bothering to verify the merits of the nomination, one way or another.  That ain't going to happen either.  Ravenswing 23:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Asbestos but delete nevertheless. Kafziel 15:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Strongly agree with Asbestos that derogatory comments about people or their work have no place on AfD. There are criteria for deletion which should be respected. One of them is not an editor's personal opinions of artistic worth. This is specifically cautioned against as OR. It therefore represents an illicit attempt to influence the outcome of a debate that should be conducted strictly from a NPOV, and shows no respect for the process or other editors. It is also apparent from the disparaging comments made (e.g. on Pollock) that the editors making them have little knowledge of are indulging in a strong POV on the subject, which only makes it even more embarrassing for those of us who are trying to strengthen the art presence on Wikipedia. See WikiProject Arts and WikiProject_Visual_arts for a start. Ignorant Such comments are likely to be seen as ignorant by those versed in the field and will merely discourage new editors with genuine knowledge them from contributing. Thank you. Tyrenius 00:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just out of curiosity, upon which basis are you making unsupported suppositions about anyone's art historian expertise? Someone so interested in NPOV and in not making anything that could be construed as a disparaging comment should surely be familiar with WP:NPA, and not automatically assume that anyone differing from his personal artistic tastes is ignorant and inexperienced by definition.  Ravenswing 03:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is, this isn't the place to say whether or not you think his work is any good. AfD is for deciding if articles meet the criteria for inclusion here, and personal jabs at the worthiness of the subject matter don't belong here. Kafziel 04:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My apology. Someone expressing POV may have a lot of knowledge of the subject, but, in that case, is unfortunately not following policy in making use of it to give a balanced representation of established views in the field, which is that Pollock, for example, is recognised as a major artist and not "tripe". Tyrenius 05:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Disagree with the quotes but this is still not notable. ~ trialsanderrors 05:34, 6 June 2006 (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.