Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley West


 * 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 keep — SpikeToronto (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Ashley West

 * Comment: Completing an incomplete nomination here. User did not leave a reason for deletion. Have proded them on their talk page to come back and give a reason. Although I initially thought this should be deleted, I am remaining neutral at this time. Redfarmer (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * User has now provided a reason. Redfarmer (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The list of exhibitions seems to satisfy WP:BIO. Ros0709 (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. Not convinced that he meets WP:BIO - he's not known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. He hasn't created a significant or well-known work, and his work hasn't either become a significant monument, been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, and is not represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries - at least as far as the article and his own website are concerned. He's had several solo exhibitions, sure, but that's not a huge thing (I've had four myself), and of the group shows only the RCofA one is that notable - and even then we don't know how big his role in it was. BTW, if kept, it will need serious copyediting - quite a bit of it seems to be a copyvio from here. Bonus points from me for being another artist with a Barnet connection, but that's not going to sway anyone else from their keep/delete opinions :) Grutness...wha?  00:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Already nominated previous day, see Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_February_1. No opinion on notability per WP:BIO. Barno (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see it's the same discussion, just transcluded onto both the 1-Feb and 2-Feb AFD pages. Barno (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Firstly, if the wikiauthor could cite articles/journals/books that have referred to the artist’s work, would that be sufficient to satisfy the requirements under WP:BIO?  Also, if the essential predicate for the inclusion of biographies on Wikipedia is that the subject be notable, then should we not take account of the following:


 * "“It is not famous and it is arguably not important, but I think that no one would serious[ly] question that it is valid material for an encyclopedia. What is it that makes this encyclopedic? It is that it is information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an NPOV fashion.” — Jimbo Wales quoted here. [Emphasis added.]"


 * This is an encyclopedia with unlimited space. Inclusion on Wikipedia of a small article that is factually correct and written from a neutral point of view about an artist who has had a significant number of one-man and group shows, has won awards, and has a book of his collected works available from booksellers — all of which is verifiable via a Google UK search — surely does not run contrary to the intention of Wikipedia nor is not encyclopedic. Moreover, the guideline for biographic notability states that the concept of notability “is distinct from ‘fame’, ‘importance’, or ‘popularity’, although these may positively correlate with notability.” [Emphasis added.] Finally, I cannot find anything from a cursory examination of the Wikipedia official policy on biographies of living persons that automatically and clearly cries out for the exclusion of this article. — SpikeToronto (talk) 04:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * KEEP for the reasons mentioned above. DavidJJJ (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Moreover it definitely agrees with this policy WP:BIO. Wikipedia is also an encyclopedia with unlimited space therfore he is notable enough. DavidJJJ (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * keep this article. Chinwe Izamoje (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 *  Delete  Neutral per above. Modernist (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. –Modernist (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for reasons above, plus the article has been much improved, and so is now a lot more verifiable. (GowsiPowsi (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC))
 * Delete Solid professional artist, but mostly local gallery shows do not confer notability. Johnbod (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * KEEP for the reasons above. Bob Garfield Hoskins (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Definitely notable. Punk Rocker (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It's painfully hard to get him to show up in Google through the thicket of other AWs, but that's sort of the point, isn't it? The best I could find were some gallery listings and (I think) one mention of him as a lecturer. Mangoe (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * keep for sure--79.66.102.246 (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Article and references describe an artist, but fail to describe a notable person. Nothing in the article meets WP:BIO for Creative professionals. This document, which seems to be generated by the artist, lists no references that could establish encyclopedic notablity (a doc like this would be the best case for finding notablilty, the artist is "blowing his own horn"). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep because he is notable and because now many of the sources have been cited.82.34.218.65 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I notice alot of editors (who seem to be partisan towards this artist) are making comments along the lines "if we can show reliable references that this artists exists, then he should be included in Wikipedia". This is directly in contridiction to Wikipedia is not a directory. Existance is not a criteria for being in Wikipedia, notability is. i.e. Wikipedia is not the white pages or an artist directory such as "AskArt", and therefor does not included artists just because you can prove they are an artist. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that includes people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Do not delete. There are not sufficient links of second party evidence, but there is evidence of notable work. Blueswan1967 (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Regarding the guidelines stated in WP:BIO#Creative Professionals, I find it interesting that the application of the guidelines listed at WP:BIO#Pornographic Actors makes it easier in the Wikipedia world to forever enshrine a pornographic performer in Wikipedia, than to provide a small encyclopedic article that is factually correct and written from a neutral point of view about an artist who has had a significant number of one-man and group shows, has won awards, has a book of his collected works available from booksellers, and creates works of art of an enduring and lasting nature. For a porn performer, possessed as they are of the most fleeting of careers, all that would seem to be required is (1) a nomination for a porn award, which some would argue are handed out like candy, and (2) an independent review of his/her work, something which occurs every time a porn studio provides review copies to sellers of their product. (N.B. The other two criteria listed at WP:BIO#Pornographic Actors seem to rarely be applied, to which even a cursory review of porn performers with wikiarticles can attest.) How can the application of guidelines in WP:BIO be so lax and inclusive for one type of artist and their application be so restrictive and exclusive for another type of artist?  I do not think that such a divergence in application is the intention of these guidelines.  The existence of such a divergence of application would suggest that either (a) the application of the guidelines for inclusion of porn performers has to be tightened up, or (b) the application of the guidelines for the inclusion of artists has to be interpreted in a more inclusive manner. I still vote to keep the Ashley West article. — SpikeToronto (talk) 06:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please calm down! The book is self-authored and self-published, the one-man shows are pretty local, none of the group shows has an article (as an example of notability).  There are no independent sources cited. Other Stuff Exists is not an argument.  He falls fairly clearly into the type of artist that gets deleted here, despite being a solid professional.  Let me know if you go on a porn-star deletion rampage - I may well support. Johnbod (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My point is that the rules need to be applied equally, either in an inclusive manner (e.g., porn performers) or an exclusive manner (e.g., painters/artists). I like the more inclusive approach … which, of course, means I will not be going on a “porn-star deletion rampage”:  It would offend my anti-censorship mentality.  (Plus, I rather like being able to find info about my favorite porn performers from yesteryear!) As for the “Please clam down!” comment, I find that insulting. I wrote the comment from an intellectual perspective. You apparently read it with much more of a head of steam. Don’t hit the EDIT button with so much gusto next time and perhaps you won’t be tempted to impute an emotion to a writer of which he was not possessed. — SpikeToronto (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Shouldnt we end this as it has already been five days. DavidJJJ (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * KEEP for reasons above. (GowsiPowsi (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC))
 * this should definately end (GowsiPowsi (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2008 (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.