Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Thomson, Stella Vine, and the Stuckists


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Charles Thomson, Stella Vine, and the Stuckists

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Oddly-scoped article about how two artists were "married briefly" while being part of the same art movement; plenty of interview sources of them talking about their marriage, but seemingly nothing to frame "Person X, Person Y and Art Movement Z" as a significant standalone subject. Content should abbreviated and split between Charles Thomson and Stella Vine, with the same weight that any marriage gets - the Stuckism already covers enough of the couple's impact on the group. McGeddon (talk) 09:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge anything of note into Charles Thomson and Stella Vine, as the nominator suggests. This article was next on my 'hit list' after Charitable work by Stella Vine, being another bloated over-detailed synthesised content fork of the Stella Vine article. She's definitely a notable artist but certainly not notable enough to justify these mega essays! Sionk (talk) 11:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Rubbish that misrepresents Vine (favourably) and her opponents (badly). Some of it is sourced to primary sources (including Thompson and the Stuckists) and some to broken links, but where available secondary sources are often misrepresented, failing to acknowledge criticisms of Vine or to present the POVs of her opponents, while blowing up passing mentions into claims of great artistic significance. For instance, her accusation that Saatchi was engaging in anticompetitive practices is presented in a very one-sided way, quoting only Stuckists and ex-Stuckists, despite WP:BLP issues. Sarcastic praise is quoted as genuine praise, and abuse is ignored. Hence, it badly fails WP:NPOV. If there is any encyclopedic content, then POV and referencing issues can be fixed by editing, but this is trivia and gossip. For another example, the fact that her ex-husband includes her in a list of artists who the Tate overlooked, published on a dubiously-WP:RS website, is hardly worth writing about. And nor does every bon mot of Vine and Thompson deserve immortality. If anyone is bothered to extract the iota of legitimate content and merge it, fine, but deletion is more realistic for this non-notable topic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Admittedly there are already substantial sections in Charles Thomson and Stella Vine about the marriage and subsequent spats. There's probably not much else that needs to be added. It's difficult to know who is being misrepresented, if anyone. Their views on the issues seem to be polar opposites! Sionk (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The article is original research, pasting together reliable sources emphasizing certain things and telling a narrative that may or may not result in a POV. It could be a signed magazine or newspaper article, a chapter in a book. The article creator User:Madeofstars has not logged in since 2010, but from 2008 to 2010 put a lot of time and effort on a group of articles around Stella Vine. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh, I hadn't registered it when AfDing, but another way of saying "made of stars" would be "stellar". Madeofstars briefly claimed to be a "big fan" of Vine and seems quite personally involved,. I'll flag the main Stella Vine article as having probable COI issues. --McGeddon (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2013 (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.