Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ash Lieb (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Missvain (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Ash Lieb
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

GNG fail. After looking at the sources, I am fairly convinced that the book sources are self-published or actually authored by Lieb under pseudonym. I do not trust any of them, reliability-wise. That leaves numerous articles in the local paper, The Courier, many of which are trivial mentions. --- Possibly (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete, all coverage I can find is in the local paper. He may be a noteworthy artist in his city, but I don't see him discussed anywhere else. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete the sources are either suspect per Possibly's research, or trivial.Theredproject (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, many of the books are definitely not self published. At least three are from New Zealand , another three are from Canada   , and several are from within Australia, including one published by a researcher at the university of Hobart. There may also be others listed at world cat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by El937 (talk • contribs)
 * It appears that all of your edits have been related to Ash Lieb, so I have to take those sources with a grain of salt. Unfortunately I can't actually review any of them to check on the coverage but "Surreal pop: the art of Ash Lieb" only returns google 7 results. I have no way of determining the quality of these sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I checked the Canadian ones, being Canadian myself. Luminary books is registered in Canada but has no web presence at all. Cherry Street books has no web presence. Reverie has a web site but I am not sure if it is the same company. http://reveriepress.com/ is a self-publishing company. --- Possibly (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much what I expected, so I'm still solidly at 2Delete2Furious. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I looked up some of these books. Goodreads has an author page for "James Willow Jr." who has written three Lieb books. The most promising one "The art and times of Ash Lieb", University of Tasmania" doesn't show up in web searches. The ISBN does not exist when I search library or ISBN indexes. in fact, none of the ISBNs listed above are accurate. It's a fraud show. --- Possibly (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It turns out the ISBNs do work, so striking that bit. the books are still highly dubious though. --- Possibly (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Even better. Can I vote double secret delete? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ha. I think you can add "with impunity". By the way, you need to strike the second accidental d*l*te !vote! I usually just put stars in some of the letters when I need to do that. --- Possibly (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Will that change fix it? Is that to keep the AFDstats bot happy? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes that's fine. Thanks. It's more to prevent mistakes in manual counting.--- Possibly (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 07:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Persuaded by Possibly's solid source analysis, I reckon this is a well-disguised self-promo piece that needs to go. (And as SFR points out, the lone opinion to the contrary is from a largely-SPA with likely COI issues.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm calling WP:HOAX Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2021 (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.