Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BC Biermann


 * 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. Even if the topic were theoretically notable - and participants here think that the vast majority of the sourcing does not satisfy WP:SIGCOV criteria - this article is unduly promotional and possibly deceptive to stand. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

BC Biermann

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Don't let the extensive blathering and bloated resume fool you, this person is absolutely non-notable. On the "academic" side of things, he teaches an augmented reality class (associate professor) at California Baptist University. He has possibly 2 total articles to his name that I could determine, with a grand total of 6 citations. Now specifically concerning WP:ARTIST: I fail to see how he satisfies any of the criteria, unless of course there are sources available which I did not find. Finally and most importantly, general notability is not satisfied through the list of references in the article, as they are mostly single mentions, or are trivial or otherwise non-independent coverage concerning art shows which he attended usually as part of a group, or promoting other artists. I performed an extensive search for sources outside those provided and could not find any of weight. Again, the two most substantive ones were this one which talks about an app he helped develop (he's mentioned once in passing), and this book that briefly discusses his involvement in an ad campaign within a chapter on marketing. So, in summary, I don't think this CV, however obtuse, would alone justify an article when there is no extensive coverage about the person. PK650 (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:TNT. Note that the article shows signs of autobiography (e.g. "was considered a bright, but unmotivated student").  It's also worthwhile to comment that the originating account has also made edits with appearance of COI at MOMO and Jordan Seiler. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment There are a number of things going on with this article that I find very strange, and indicate of attempts to present a non0-neutral point of view of the subject,. For example: the photo of Biermann is captioned "Venice Biennale 2019" and has the description "BC Biermann at the Venice Biennale circa 2019". To most readers familiar with the art world the Venice Biennale is one of the most important exhibitions of contemporary art and an exhibition in one of the national pavilions is highly indicative of notability. Biermann did not participate in that exhibition. The photo is dated 10 June 2019, during the biennale that ran from May to 24 November 2019. What Biermann participated in was another non-notable exhibition that occurred at the same time, also in Venice. It's not exactly a falsehood to say he was at the biennale, he probably went to see it, but it is highly misleading to suggest he participated. Vexations (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I tagged this for notability while patrolling to see if the author could improve the referencing (as I didn't think it met GNG); however, I realized that the author is a pure WP:SPA who "dropped" this +16,000 character BLP as their first edit on Wikipedia (e.g. this could also be a WP:UPE/WP:SPI issue as well). Britishfinance (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Coverage like this suggests to me that NARTIST may be met, but I agree that this has the hallmarks of promotional editing and would not object to its deletion. signed,Rosguill talk 18:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your NARTIST comment above, given that source is actually not indepedent, as it (IEEE) was promoting his participation at the IEEE panel. PK650 (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I missed that detail, good catch. signed,Rosguill talk 00:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per the above. signed,Rosguill talk 00:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TOOSOON and UPE/SPI concerns. Having gone through the refs and google search, there is very little good RS on this subject, and nothing in the way of a quality RS with WP:SIGCOV.  Most refs are either not WP quality to assess an artist BLP and/or not independent of the subject (e.g Heavy Projects).  I find passing mentions in books on "Augmented Reality Art" like this, and here. Perhaps Augmented reality art will become something and BC Biermann will become more appreciated, however, currently, he is not getting any real coverage in the art world – if the main art magazines/art sections of newspapers don't want to cover him (and have zero SIGCOV on him), why would Wikipedia? Britishfinance (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks to who has run the CU on  and . Britishfinance (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment / Keep per the above, it seems that several are applying more traditional (print) fine art source standards to digital art and seem to miss quite a bit of coverage. We're not sure how the above searches were conducted. Though we could see how this classification could move from "artist" to "technologist". However, Even a quick google search reveals the first 3 pages devoted to the subject specifically in these areas, inc. chapters in AR texts like AR, Art, and Public Space. In Augmented Reality: Innovative Perspectives across Art, Industry, and Academia and appears in several related AR art articles such as https://www.fastcompany.com/1682447/rethinking-public-space-bc-biermann-s-augmented-reality-urban-art. Subject seems synonymous with AR and art and appears to be one of the principle forerunner of augmented reality murals. Subject seems a regular at SIGGRAPH which is the leading event in the field https://s2019.siggraph.org/conference/programs-events/studio/studio-workshops/ and has published in this space  https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3214745.3214747. Most refs appear independent of the subject. It appears the 1 rather minor error in thread was resolved (biennale vs. design). To be a bit more accurate from the comment re: venice biennale, venice design is sponsored by biennale and runs concurrently with it. VXDLAB site shows teaching 5 courses (not 2 as incorrectly mentioned above) (vfx, 3d, ar, vr, ui ux). Best to properly vet commentary before posting as some of the above seems a bit non-neutral and appears to rely to heavily on thinly conducted research. As such, we suggest a more constructive approach and appropriately fixing any remaining items in the article.
 * venice design is sponsored by biennale and runs concurrently with it Nonsense. The list of sponsors is here:. I'm fed up with the deception. The main contributors to this article are not editing in good faith. Delete. Vexations (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Brief analysis of the sources. There are a few that may be secondary, independent and reliable. The majority of sources however is by Biermann himself.
 * 2013-05-03 Susan Karlin for Fastcompany seems independent, generally reliable.
 * 2013-03-01 same author (Susan Karlin) as fastcompany
 * e-book published by Syngress, imprint of Elsevier. Wassom refers to his blog, archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20120203084511/http://www.wassom.com/interview-bc-heavy-biermann-taking-back-public-spaces-with-ar.html which has virtually identical text.
 * Biermann's PhD thesis
 * Discussion with Biermann
 * looks like a rewritten press release, only mentions Biermann as a participant
 * blog, dead link (archived at )
 * Biermann talking
 * discussion with Biermann
 * slideshow by Biermann
 * video by Biermann
 * Emily Long for the Lamp is a media-literacy org. Possibly a reliable secondary source.
 * Kate McGee for NPR, likely independent, reliable
 * Biermann's own website
 * video by WorkLearnMobile
 * video by Biermann
 * website by Biermann
 * website by Biermann
 * article by Biermann
 * press release by Biermann
 * talk by Biermann
 * autobiography by Biermann
 * festival website; briefly mentions Biermann
 * employee page with (auto?)biography
 * by Biermann
 * mentioned as member of committee
 * mentioned as speaker
 * interview with Biermann
 * It may be possible to create a stub-like article from the few usable sources identified above, but it would be a very different article than the CV we have now. I still support deleting this version (and banning the sockpuppets of the UPE). Vexations (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, none of the above give a single piece of WP:SIGCOV from a quality independent WP:RS. To have a BLP, we must have at least one decent independent RS doing a piece in which he is the main subject. We don't have this. Britishfinance (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - as per all of the rationale above. Netherzone (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete NotButtigieg (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2020 (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.