Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AustinFromNEW


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

AustinFromNEW

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable artist per WP:ARTIST and WP:BIO, most references given either fail to mention by name or only ambiguously credit "Austin". No significant coverage online from reliable sources per WP:RS. Prod removed by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  —MuffledThud (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Googling the name comes up with a number of results in the arts and design world and while the references given in the article aren't really references but apparently mistaken for examples by the author, I think this entry may stay here. Also, the list of publications alone would proof a certain notability. Article needs improvement though. De728631 (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is not established by an artist having steady work. Narthring (talk  • contribs) 23:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable. The subject is an illustrator, so the list of publications could well be a list of illustrations, not a list of material about him. Two of the sources in the article are from Jaguar Shoes, wich is a trendy bar in Shoreditch but not really encyclopedic.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep surely? - They are not the best examples ( the bar was / is frequented by Nathan Barleys ) however, 5 of the opening Adobe Flash images are the only examples to be found online so far... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oz71 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The article's references do not establish notability per any of the points in WP:ARTIST, nor was I able to find anything after searching online.  There are many examples of the subject's work but I couldn't find anything that seemed to indicate notability.  A third-party reference treating the subject or something similar would help, if such a reference exists.  Narthring (talk  • contribs) 05:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: WP:ARTIST - There's copy, interview and reference material in existence about this artist, it's just all mainly in print - the influential / pioneering approach (for example - in the introduction of "emailed artwork" to magazines such as Time Out, The Face , Speak and Raygun ) is of note, it's the evidence online that's hard to source. The 'Underground' Influences chapter about Austin from NEW in Digital Illustration by Lawrence Zeegen and the Illustration series Book 1: Thinking Visually  are just two out of a dozen prime sources in the Book list provided... The notability or notoriety of this artist amongst his peers is something that also exists to a greater degree beyond a comb of the internet... Oz71 (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How can we WP:VERIFY this? MuffledThud (talk) 00:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Online?... Hmmm, you can "see inside" at Amazon and if you flick to the last image ( the rear flap ) of the book you can read a bit of blurb about this artist/designer... other than that, (Art/Design School) University libraries or somewhere like Magma ? Oz71 (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot of the references given show works by New, but don't show involvement from AustinFromNew (or even "Austin"). The failed-verification tags were removed without explanation from the references I tagged, but I've restored them and added some more. MuffledThud (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine, but please note: There's incorrect, misspelled ( and plain old cryptic ) credits online as well as in newspapers or printed books - Closer inspection of the 'artwork' itself confirms the hand/hands involved and uncovers pseudonyms... Oz71 (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There's nothing wrong with using non-internet sources. They can be verified by looking at the printed media, though access to such media can be more difficult than online sources.  The problem is that there aren't any specific examples from these books stated that establish notability.  It's difficult to reasonably establish notability by simply saying something exists somewhere in a certain book;  to verify such a claim someone would have to search the entire book looking for something in context.  The claim that notability exists in the printed media would carry more weight if those facts that establish notability from the printed media were presented in the article.  Citation of those claims would be even better, allowing other editors to easily verify those claims.  Narthring (talk  • contribs) 16:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes - It's a bit of a conundrum, but these books are readily available worldwide and can quite easily checked ( there is no need to delete and simply instantly dismiss this article on this basis ) as we are talking about chapters and clearly indexed pages on the artist rather than conjecture or a 'name check' in a footnote - somewhere?... More importantly with illustration - there are copyright laws meaning even if the artist gives permission for these artworks to be reproduced online ( and only if stated in any usage agreement contract have they reserved ALL their rights to do that ) you will then be breaking a law regarding the publishers rights if you reproduce any written material - ie. to put that artists image in context and in effect reproducing part of the book - to prove of it's existence and the artists standing... So surely, the only way is to check the actual books in the book list provided and have the information verified more thoroughly ( over a longer timeframe ) than is currently being given for such a task to be completed more accurately and fairly? - Oz71 (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Reproducing a written assertion of notability from any of these books, with a corresponding citation, would not break copyright law in any way. I looked over the information in the books (that I could find) and the real problem is there doesn't seem to be any reliable, third-party references that establish the notability of the subject.  The books in the article appear to be works that that artist/illustrator has worked on.  To establish notability the subject would have to meet one of the criterion from WP:ARTIST.  In a nutshell the subject does not seem to be an important figure, cited widely, to have created a new concept, has not created a significant work, and has not garnered significant critical attention.  To satisfy any of these criterion an editor would expect to be able to find a critisim of the subject's work in a third-party reference, an interview with the subject, or something else that would assert notability.Narthring (talk  • contribs) 23:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm? There seems to be an issue with continuety here... There are copyright issues and without quoting the author and using their words how do you prove anything unless you know the sources of information beyond what is available online? There seems to be a miss-understanding ( or something ) as the list of publications alone are proof a certain notability - and - Googling the name provides a number of results in the arts and design world ( See also; arts and design and magazines ) - if you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_illustrators there appears to be just '3' contemporary UK ones in the whole wide world? Plus - notable Designers suffer the same misfortune here too... If we put AustinFromNEW's Myspace, Twitter, Facebook etc, links up there with his thousands of followers - would that help establish the artists notability onto Wikipedia? - Did we mention he introduced emailing artwork to magazines and newspapers? - There must be a reason why Austin/NEW appears in so many books, no? - Oz71 (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're not breaking the law if you quote from a text: it's allowed under fair use. Quoting from published sources is the basis for the entire encyclopedia.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 00:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but if something is NOT available online - how do you verify it here?... The point was, that we can't scan the pages of the books and put them online - and putting examples of the work up out of context doesn't make any sense either? - Just hoped that Wiki would be inclusive as it seems "Notability" is relative, subjective, and a matter of POV? Oz71 (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Verifiability, in the Wikipedia sense, is "whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". (from this page)  One way to do this is to cite sources so other editors may check them.  For example, an article may state "the Titanic was a ship".  This could be verified by adding a citation to a reliable source such as this page.  Then other editors may look at this source an evaluate whether or not the source states the Titanic was indeed a ship, or whether is source is reliable in the Wikipedia sense of the word as stated here.  Sources do not need to be online;  if a book is used as a source other editors will look at the book, just as they look at an online resource, and evaluate the source and its assertion.


 * For the current article's subject the list of publications in itself establishes that the subject is steadily employed. Google hits do not establish notability.  Although the subject may be popular enough to have a large Twitter, Facebook, etc. following that also does not establish notability.  The general notability guidelines here and specific artist notability guidelines here help us to determine what is or is not notable instead of relying on a relative/subjective point of view. Narthring (talk  • contribs) 01:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jayron  32  05:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake   Wartenberg  00:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete References and list of works establish that this artist has steady work, not that they have gotten a lot of attention for it. Miami33139 (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep References and list of works establish that this artist has steady work. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The real issue here is notability, and steady work does not establish notability. Many people have steady work that is verifiable by third-party reliable sources, but they fail all notability standards, as this artist does by the standards set forth in WP:ARTIST and WP:NOTABILITY.  Narthring (talk  • contribs) 19:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 'Note: WP:NOTABILITY -?- Again, the article is about a specialized field... Oz71 (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I mention WP:NOTABILITY because even though the subject fails the narrower definition of WP:ARTIST there is always the chance the subject could have been notable according to the broader criterion set forth in WP:NOTABILITY, though that does not seem to be the case here. Narthring (talk  • contribs) 03:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Since the AfD discussion has been extended a couple of times I think I should state what to me is obvious, that despite the trendy CamelCase, this is an article about someone called Austin who works for a design company called New. The sources (IMHO) list work undertaken by New. They are not third party commentaries on New, even less 'Austin from New'.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur. The case for deletion seemed clear enough to me after checking the the "sources", and finding a lack thereof.  Narthring (talk  • contribs) 01:59, 21 November 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.