Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clint Baclawski


 * 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 no consensus. No need for a relist, it is rather clear that this discussion will not lead to a consensus anytime soon. Randykitty (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Clint Baclawski

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't appear to pass WP:NARTIST JC7V (talk) 07:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Clint Baclawski is a contemporary artist that should be included in Wikipedia. This page was marked for deletion due to possible "notability" issues. Baclawski was included in "The National: Best Contemporary Photography 2018" at the Fort Wayne Museum of Art, Fort Wane, IA. Additionally, the Lehman College exhibit, "Castles in the Sky: Fantasy Architecture in Contemporary Art" featured Baclawski alongside artists Salvador Dali, David Lachapelle, and Claes Oldernburg.


 * The Boston Globe has written about Baclawski, once in 2015 and again in 2016


 * His work is included in private and institutional collections. Baclawski has been featured in: FRAME magazine, The Boston Globe, The Creator’s Project, Boston Home magazine, Designboom, and The Collector’s Guide to New Art Photography Volume II.


 * Clint Baclawski should be included as a contemporary artist in the Wikipedia collection because he is currently making and showing art at institutions and investing in the next generation of artists while teaching students at Massachusetts College of Art and Design. If we do not include artists who are truly contemporary, we are doing a disservice to readers who go to Wikipedia to learn about contemporary artists. Levesc12 (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * , But he lacks WP:SIGCOV and doesn't appear to pass WP:NARTIST.  WP:ILIKEIT is a WP:ATA (Argument to Avoid) in AFD discussions. It's a disservice to our readers to have articles on subjects who aren't notable enough to pass WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. Those pieces don't show WP:SIGCOV. JC7V (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete, does not meet WP:CREATIVE, works not held by notable galleries/museums, has not been a part of major exhibitions, a gsearch confirms this, a WorldCat search doesnt bring up anything significant, this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Those two Boston Globe articles cited above do add up to something, when added to the article in Frame (conveniently but rather dubiously uploaded to Google Docs). And there may be other significant coverage (or if you prefer, "sigcov") as well. -- Hoary (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - agree with Hoary. The 2016 Boston Globe article is especially good. Curiocurio (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete There is one good source-- the more recent Boston Globe item. The 2015 BG article talks about him for a paragraph. Other items in the article and a search are weak and do not establish his notability as an artist. Meeting even basic GNG here is a bit of a stretch.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not pass WP:NARTIST or WP:SIGCOV. Also possible WP:COI as creator of the page is also the photographer who shot the images on the article subject's personal website, and the Frame article. Netherzone (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Frame article was in print, web edition difficult to find. In regards to significant coverage (or if you prefer, "sigcov") there is also the article Phil Zminda, “Clint Baclawski Imagines An Ad-Less America In Flashing Lights”, Boston Art Review, Issue #02: Field Work, Fall 2018. The web version of the article here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levesc12 (talk • contribs)
 * Levesc12, you appear to be connected to the article subject, as you claim creator credit for the pics in the article, and at least one of them also appears on Baclawski's own web site. Anything you would like to share? It would seem that you have a clear conflict of interest.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There does not seem to be an agreement whether the sources are enough for passing WP:GNG.
 * Comment. I'm surprised by the simple, comment-free invocations of "WP:SIGCOV". The latter comes with just two concrete [-looking] examples: an entire book about one person, and the most fleeting mention of one band. Clearly the coverage of Baclawski cited in the article or above is far less than the former, but this is true of not just a lot of biographical articles (an observation that famously isn't a valid "keep" argument) but the majority of them. (Yes, I mean that the majority of poets, photographers, phonologists, psychologists etc that get articles here don't have books about themselves.) Clearly the coverage of Baclawski cited in the article or above is far greater than the one passing mention of "Three Blind Mice" -- and of course this is an absurdly low bar, allowing in, inter alia, just about anyone who's ever been seen on TV kicking or batting a ball. JC7V, Netherzone, ThatMontrealIP, I'm interested: About how much more [independent, reliable] coverage of this fellow would you want to see before saying that it had added up to the point where one could call it "significant"? -- Hoary (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep meets the requirements of GNG. ♟♙ (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2018 (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.