Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Crawford (journalist)


 * 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. ✗ plicit  07:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Ashley Crawford (journalist)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non notable individual. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a pr platform or vanity publisher. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Journalism,  and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Signally fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * so what is the test? is it a level of public impact? eg how does the entry on U2 the rock band meet the criteria ? isn't that just PR and vanity, albeit professionally written by that arm of the their mercantile business? 124.190.29.138 (talk) 01:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So if the policy is "On Wikipedia, the general inclusion threshold is whether the subject is notable enough for at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source." and Crawford is the author of innumerable articles on popular culture, in reliable sources, yet is not the subject, how does that fit in with the criteria? His impact, or notoriety, is deep within his oeuvre. Viraload (talk) 01:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  13:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * compare the pair: Matthew Collings Viraload (talk) 01:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * and while we're at it should we also compare apples and oranges. WP:OTHERSTUFF. No point comparing a BAFTA winner to what? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * .. just trying to understand how it works. I am to understand that a career journalist with innumerable published works needs to have won an award to achieve the notability criteria? Viraload (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * if it makes a contribution we can add a blizzard of citations to published articles, talks, exhibition essays, etc Viraload (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * anyway I vote KEEP Viraload (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * added citations where needed Viraload (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I see some new sources have been added but Viraload, what Wikipedia is looking for are articles, books, journals, book reviews where Crawford, or their work, is the subject, not ones where they are the author. I'll note that many accomplished people do not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability because no reliable sources have covered their lives or careers. It can be too soon and, in time, they will be recognized and written about. But Wikipedia requires verification from secondary sources that subjects, events and things are notable. It is actually a high bar to reach unless you work in some fields, like athletics or politics, where subjects are routinely written about in newspapers and other media. Liz Read! Talk! 20:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * • Keep I have received this swathe of verifications from but am not sure how to attach them :
 *  Dark Gnosis 
 * “Like the old prophets Ballard and Baudrillard, as well as Mark Dery and Slavoj Žižek (on a good day), Ashley Crawford practices cultural criticism as a high-low art of forensic pathology. Casting a scalpel-sharp eye on the enigmas of fleshy abjection in recent American literature, film, and art, Crawford then links this visceral weirdness to the apocalypse cultures of the recent and distant past. Along the way, Crawford convincingly argues that such epidermal eschatology is not so much a symptom of nihilism as a mutant expression of an American gnostic religion now gone feral and deranged.”
 * – Erik Davis, author of Nomad Codes: Adventures in Modern Esoterica
 * “With just the right balance of postmodern theory and pop intellectualism, Ashley Crawford explores the visions of apocalypse that were always there, in the night terrors of our New Jerusalem. Crossing the brio of his fellow Aussie Robert Hughes with an oracular style familiar from Baudrillard’s America, Crawford reveals American Christianity for the mutant thing it is: the dark side of the Enlightenment, haunted by gnostic strains and gothic tendencies. Dark Gnosis should take the place of every Gideons bible in every motel on Route 666.”
 * — Mark Dery, author of I Must Not Think Bad Thoughts: Drive-By Essays on American Dread, American Dreams
 * “Dark Gnosis takes us into the heart of America’s schizophrenic relationship with the apocalypse, the simultaneous fear and fascination with The End. Crawford’s thrilling analysis of end-time dreaming in the works of influential artists, writers and filmmakers shows how the religious imaginary remains integral to our cultural DNA.”
 * — Margaret Wertheim, author of The Pearly Gates of Cyberspace and Physics on the Fringe.
 *  21C 
 * “21•C is, flat out, the best looking and most determinedly eclectic pop-futurological publication in the world.... An editorial gestalt willing to fearlessly consider any futurological possibility whatever, to interrogate anything at all for its potential as fast feed into some possible future.”
 * – William Gibson, author of Neuromancer and Pattern Recognition.
 * “I’m a novelist, journalist, and futurist, and I like to consider myself well-informed, but I’m guaranteed to subscribe to anything Ashley Crawford sees fit to publish. He has more on the ball than any thirty average pundits.”
 * – Bruce Sterling, author of The Hacker Crackdown.
 * “Ashley Crawford is, quite simply, one of the world’s great publishing innovators. With maverick magazine concepts like World Art and 21•C, he has demonstrated the uncanny ability to identify significant cultural trends, as well as the insight necessary to find and attract writers who can describe seemingly complex phenomena in a language that is accessible to the widest possible audience. With style, wit, and an emphasis on substance over hype, Crawford’s publications consistently break new ground, discover new talent, and make sense of the ever-changing cultural landscape.”
 * – Douglas Rushkoff, author of Media Virus, Coercion, and The Ecstasy Club.
 * “World Art was different for two reasons: unlike other art magazines that presumed to speak for the world, but instead focused strictly on New York City, it was not parochial, which is to say provincial, and it never settled into a format. It never became predictable. It was always ready to try anything. I don’t think this is simply because it didn’t last forever.”
 * – Greil Marcus, author of Lipstick Traces, Mystery Train and Dead Elvis.
 * “A brilliant collection of articles that read like news bulletins from the future. Everyone on the way to the day after tomorrow should read Transit Lounge.”
 * – J.G. Ballard, author of Crash and The Empire of the Sun.
 * “Ashley Crawford is a writer’s editor, a damn-the-torpedoes visionary in an age when M.B.A.’s rule the newsroom. A true believer in the unfashionable notion that he can never go wrong over-estimating the intelligence of his readers, he made 21•Cand World Art the sold-out bibles of a fervent following of trendspotters, tastemakers, and ordinary readers starved for sharp, smart writing. Both were smart, stylish forums for incisive writing about pop culture, politics, mass media, and megatrends just over the horizon, fifteen minutes into the future. And that design! In these post-literate times, when readability is often sacrificed on the altar of tragic hipness, Crawford’s magazines struck a rare balance between readability, warp-drive design, and the swoony seductions of the coffee-table art book. No wonder I found myself savoring every issue cover to cover, to the consternation of other editors, bemoaning my broken deadlines. They have only Ashley Crawford to blame.”
 * – Mark Dery, author of Escape Velocity: Cyberculture at the End of the Century and The Pyrotechnic Insanitarium: American Culture on the Brink.
 * “Two of the best magazines ever to come out of Australia were Tension and 21•C. What they have in common is only one thing: Ashley Crawford. Not being a really big art buff I was a bit less interested in World Art, another Crawford initiative. Until I saw it. He managed to put together a team that could make contemporary art lively and interesting. I’m not quite sure what his secret is. He just has a way of tapping the zeitgeist. And he’s been doing it for 20 years. People who know magazines know Ashley Crawford. I’ve seen his publications in boardrooms, under glass in museums. There’s even an episode of The X Files that was inspired by a story in 21•C. Given the resources I’m sure he’ll do it all again.”
 * – McKenzie Wark, author of Virtual Geography and The Virtual Republic.
 * “Global is on everyone’s lips these days, but World Art and 21•C were the real thing. They offered a truly international view of cultural affairs that had punch and verve and polemic.”
 * – Andrew Ross, author of Strange Weather and The Chicago Gangster Theory of Life.
 * “In a world where fragmentation of media seems to be the prevailing mode, Ashley Crawford and the small team at World Art and 21•C turned out not one, but two thrillingly interdisciplinary magazines. Bringing together the worlds of art and technology, science and culture, is their speciality. At a time when the humanities and sciences seem ever more separated from one another, and when the ‘science wars’ are continuing to divide the academy, magazines that bridge these divides are increasingly essential. No one has done it better than Crawford and his colleagues. 21•C, especially, was the most unique and interesting magazine it has been my pleasure to write for.”
 * – Margaret Wertheim, author of Pythagoras Trousers and The Pearly Gates of Cyberspace: A History of Space from Dante to the Internet.
 * “When my own Mondo 2000 hit the skids, I thought it was all over for interesting and creative convergences of post-modern obsessions; with digital technology, science, art, culture, rebellion, theory. But thanks to Ashley Crawford, there was 21•Cand World Art – hip, intelligent, fun, expansive, everything that Wired wasn’t. I’m always hoping for more from Crawford.”
 * – R.U. Sirius, founder of Mondo 2000, author of How To Mutate and Take Over The World and The Real Cyberpunk Fake Book.
 * “21•C and World Art were, for the relatively short time they were around, simply the best magazines tapping the emerging artistic, cultural, and technological zeitgeist of the next century. I say this first and foremost as a writer who wants to address a well-informed but popular audience without squeezing myself into the narrow and short-sighted confines of most popular magazines, with their obsession with bite-size bits of information, celebrities, and new products. I say this also as a reader who wants intelligent, well-written essays, articles and interviews that are accessible and fun to read but aren’t afraid to make reference to important intellectual and scientific debates. And the things looked absolutely amazing – graphics and images that add information, but also carry on another dialogue with the future we should all be thinking and talking about. I trust Ashley Crawford and crew to push that dialogue forward in a way that will make the kind of great, general purpose technoculture magazine on emerging trends that we, readers and writers like myself, desperately need.”
 * –       Erik Davis, author of Techgnosis.
 * –       “21•C had many qualities that made it distinctive. Its variety and unpredictability made it difficult to identify any singular contribution to the accelerated countdown to the future that has become so rampant in the last decade of the 20th century. However its determination to cross all checkpoints was in fact the quality that made it stand out from the crowd. 21•C was less pretentious and fashion conscious than Mondo 2000 and much broader in its scope than Wired. It recognized that the contemporary world was multi-faceted and fuzzy, a poetic body sans organs that was as dependent as ever upon all areas of pre-digital cultural production. Unlike other publications attending to the trajectories of the present into the future, 21•C recognized the importance of memory as well, and did its best to tease out its traces and demonstrate their propulsive force in the casting of these trajectories. Above all else the magazine was a preparatory guide, a concentration of reconnaissance dispatches from the future: 21•C: Mode d’emploi, a user’s manual for the world to come.”
 * Darren Tofts, RealTime
 * Media Responses
 * World Art
 * “While most art mags cover the dead and the nearly dead of the art establishment, World Art plays with high-voltage wires in the rain... Young and experimental, this is the art forum to be in.”
 * – Wired, September 1996
 * “World Art is a thick, glossily produced number with MTV-like graphics and a wild sense of humor that is usually lacking in art publications.... Now we’ll see if the art world is ready for the massive changes the Net and the information highway has to offer.”
 * – The New York Observer, March 1994
 * “World Art succeeds on levels of readability and practicality where other publications simply baffle.... By asking frank questions and forgoing impenetrable artspeak, the magazine’s articles end up both intelligent and accessible.... With this magazine a gracious amount of aesthetic pleasure is reinfused into a realm rendered dreary by the pundits and polemicists. Its outlook is optimistic and presentation keen; World Art appeals to a disenchanted population that has long been told that art is not for it.”
 * – Wired, July 1995
 * “A knockout! Clearly a winner. World Art is world class. A stunning publication that constantly surprises.”
 * – Folio, January 1997
 * “This magazine has a strong feeling of currency. Excellent pictorial reproduction and design combines with canny editing to make this new mag instantaneously attractive.”
 *                   – The Melbourne Age, March 1994
 * 21•C
 * “A beautifully designed magazine of culture, technology and science.”
 * – The Guardian, UK, May 1996
 * “A magazine with substance and a really great art department.... Very cool.”
 * The Cleveland Plain Dealer, USA, September 1997
 * Australia’s 21•C, edited by Ashley Crawford, was probably the best magazine of the ‘90s. 21•C, was the most unabashedly intellectual and forward-thinking journal that I have ever seen, anywhere. And it was a striking and beautifully designed product to hold in your hands. Each issue was finely crafted, I must say. To have my own writing published alongside the likes of Erik Davis, Mark Dery, Greil Marcus, Hakim Bey, Rudy Rucker, Bruce Sterling, R.U. Sirius and Kathy Acker was an honor.
 * – Richard Metzger, Editor, Dangerous Minds, 2011
 * ‘21C reappears in the actual 21C’
 * I can’t imagine this thing appearing in any venue other than 21C. That zine was the hairiest Australian magazine in the history of the universe. And now they put the archives online, and they’re trying to pile something on top of that. That’s a genuinely scary crowd. Really, somebody could get hurt.
 * – Bruce Sterling, Wired, 2010
 * End of Days: Religious Imaging in Millennialist America PhD, 2016
 * “This is an exceptional thesis and I would like to begin by recommending it for a Vice Chancellor’s award. It is impressively detailed – the critical nuance deployed by the author demonstrates both an impressive knowledge of abstract visual art concepts and related philosophical critical theory. The author has an extraordinary command of critical thinking and combines that with a deep understanding of postmodern art and philosophy. He is also – it must be said – a wonderful writer. That is rare in someone with his intellectual reach and depth. This thesis was a pleasure to read. I have no criticisms – and I say that having read it twice. It is a flawless thesis – beautifully conceived, written and inspiring. It must be published.”
 * – Professor Catharine Lumby, Macquarie University
 * “This is an extremely well-researched, expressively written, highly engaging thesis. It takes on an ambitious topic: to survey and analyse religious imagery (especially of an apocalyptic nature) and its place in the collective, contemporary American psyche or consciousness. The work on this thesis has been very thorough. Once the key works for analysis were identified, a great deal of relevant literature, at all levels of complexity (from journalistic to scholarly) was duly consulted. The author is clearly working from a deep familiarity with certain ‘waves’ of cultural production and successive Western zeitgeists from postmodernism in the 1980s and cyberpunk in the 1990s through to steampunk in the 2000s, and beyond.”
 * – Associate Professor Adrian Martin, Monash University
 * Transit Lounge
 * “Unlike other publications of the ‘Information Age,’ 21•C, under the strong editorship of Ashley Crawford, managed to steer clear of the excesses and frequent hyperbole that has accompanied the explosive growth of the Internet and ‘Third Wave’ corporations. The articles in Transit Lounge read like mini research reports from the future, critical in tone, well-crafted, and notably have conscience, and sometimes even dissent. Transit Lounge stands apart from the wealth of by now trendy cyber-crit anthologies by drawing upon the critical voices of diverse specialists and analysts, painting a broad but detailed mosaic of 21st Century culture.”
 * – Alexander Burns, Amazon.com
 * “Transit Lounge is a collection of fifty or so of the better stories from the Australian magazine 21•C – which for those unfamiliar with it, is a wonderful publication from somewhere over the rainbow where art, fringe culture, postmodernism and technology meet the future and try to figure out what the hell is going on. It goes where Wired fears to tread, but with more thought and (in my ever-so-humble-opinion) more credibility – if only in that its focus is less on how technology can reshape society and more on how we are reshaping ourselves.”
 * – Astrid Atkinson, fineArt forum, vol. 12, no. 6, June 1998
 * Spray: The Work of Howard Arkley
 * “If ‘academic’ means impenetrable, laboriously written text, the academic, Spray is not. But it does document, logically, Arkley’s artistic and personal development… With its lush illustrations and comprehensive documentation, this edition ensures that it will remain the definitive reference on Arkley’s work.”
 * – Susan McCulloch-Uehlin, Australian Book Review, April, 2002
 * First Life
 * “...a tome of a catalogue with an essay by Ashley Crawford that rivals a
 * Paul Theroux travel saga.”
 * – Jane Dwyer, Asia ArtNews
 * Lines of Fire: Tim Storrier
 * “Crawford is well respected in the field of art writing and his address of the work is excellent. His dedication to the book is suggested in the last chapter, in which he tells of traveling with Storrier on an artistic mission to Turkey. Crawford’s low-ego critical style is the book’s greatest asset. Unassuming yet authoritative, he provides the reader with different angles on Storrier’s work without indulging in over conceptualising the artist’s rigorous yet subjective study of environment.”
 * - Jesse McDonald, Artwrite, 2005
 * The Art of James Davis
 * Crawford’s book does an admirable job of unveiling the intention and background of this independent and forceful artist. Paintings that first appeared difficult and abrasive soon become intriguing. Crawford’s clarity allows the works to open up before the reader. Each new page brings another variation, another panel and greater insight into the symbolic work and its relevance to the artist’s unique experience... The Art of James Davis is an excellent guide to his vocabulary.
 * - Tim Spencer, artsHub Viraload (talk) 05:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * “Crawford is well respected in the field of art writing and his address of the work is excellent. His dedication to the book is suggested in the last chapter, in which he tells of traveling with Storrier on an artistic mission to Turkey. Crawford’s low-ego critical style is the book’s greatest asset. Unassuming yet authoritative, he provides the reader with different angles on Storrier’s work without indulging in over conceptualising the artist’s rigorous yet subjective study of environment.”
 * - Jesse McDonald, Artwrite, 2005
 * The Art of James Davis
 * Crawford’s book does an admirable job of unveiling the intention and background of this independent and forceful artist. Paintings that first appeared difficult and abrasive soon become intriguing. Crawford’s clarity allows the works to open up before the reader. Each new page brings another variation, another panel and greater insight into the symbolic work and its relevance to the artist’s unique experience... The Art of James Davis is an excellent guide to his vocabulary.
 * - Tim Spencer, artsHub Viraload (talk) 05:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete agree with all above, nothing about her for sourcing. Simply doing your job and showing proof of it by articles you've written isn't what's needed here. Oaktree b (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Primarily for the benefit of (a new and WP:SPA): As other reviewers have noted, Wikipedia's basic requirement for entry is that the subject is notable . Essentially subjects are presumed  if they have received significant coverage in   that are,  of each other, and . Certainly, Crawford is an experienced critic/author/journalist but in order to justify a page in Wikipedia it must satisfy at least one of the following: WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR, WP:JOURNALIST. I am an inclusionist so I don't lightly vote to delete, but I cannot find multiple, independent, substantial, reliable sources that establish Crawford's notability, as defined. As Oaktree noted, doing your job (as a critic, author, journalist) doesn't justify an entry here. What is needed is evidence that Crawford meets the notability criteria, not that Crawford has published books and articles, rather that others have substantially about him. That list of commendations is fine but they need to have been published in accord with the definition of reliable sources, so they can be verified, and if they have, please amend the page accordingly. I do note that how you came upon such a list when you apparently don't have their source is curious and suggests WP:COI: please declare any conflict of interest, such as in fact being Crawford. A page for Australian journalist | Chris Griffith also failed if it's of any solace. I could not find RSs via a Newsbank data search. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR, WP:JOURNALIST. Cabrils (talk) 05:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1/ Thank you for the input. To be clear I did declare Conflict of Interest before I started the page. Crawford is a friend of mine. I also think he is notable. Yes, it is my first page.
 * 2/ Regarding the list of commendations. I emailed Crawford regarding the imminent deletion, explaining there were no sources as defined above. Crawford emailed me the list of commendations included on the covers of his books, in magazines, etc . Many of which were published pre-internet. That is why I was asking for advice on how to use them. The commendations explain the notability of the subject. Viraload (talk) 00:39, 24 October 2022 (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.