Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Hilton


 * 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.  Sandstein  21:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Craig Hilton

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails GNG, fails WP:ARTIST "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Added more info; we're up to seven interviews with him in RS, which should satisfy GNG, —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Why does it fail GNG? There's an radio interview with the subject, two news stories about him, and four magazine articles about his art. This seems like ample coverage in reliable sources. I've just added another interview and a news story. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 10:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just a note that interviews are not generally considered to be RS as they are not independent of the subject. Some might be OK if they have additional text that is not interview-style.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The interviews do indeed contain additional material and so count as independent reliable sources. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 08:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No, interviews are not independent of the subject and thus do not count towards notability. If this was an interview in the New Yorker, or 60-minutes, or similar venue in NZ or Australia, then it might count. As it is, this is run-of-the-mill local human interest material. Netherzone (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  09:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  09:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  09:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete I looked at all the sources in the article, and my conclusion is that If you take away Billy Apple, this person is not notable. All of the significant coverage stems from his association with Apple. Notability is not inherited. The article is also quite puffed up: the performance art section is dedicated to a single local performance. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * changing to Merge, into Billy Apple, per Netherzone's analysis below. Possibly (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC) (formerly ThatMontrealIP)


 * Keep There are enough sources there for GNG to be met. Just because he frequently works with another notable person does not mean that he can’t be notable himself. I don’t understand ThatMontrealIP‘s comment “I looked at all the sources in the article” as many of those are offline.  Schwede 66  15:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * yes, by all, I meant the available online ones. What did you think of his performance art and exhibition record? ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I have no view on the performance art and exhibition record; what matters is his coverage in reliable sources.  Schwede 66  17:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If I take something like this source on the Billy apple work, and remove everything that is about Billy Apple, there is precious little said about Hilton. Additionally, the coverage of his single performance is just that: coverage of one event. Finally, there is no independent exhibition history with accompanying reviews, which is a hallmark of any professional artist's practice. I guess we will have to disagree; my take is that the coverage is not significant. Note my username changed today from ThatMontrealIP to > Possibly (talk) 07:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * User name change; do I take it from your old name that you are based in Canada? If so, it might pay for me to point out that the offline source North & South, which reported on him four times between 2010 and 2017, is a quality magazine "specialising in long-form investigative stories". That's the one that swayed me towards support. Of course, we don't know whether those articles dealt with Hilton in depth or whether he received peripheral mentions. If we wanted to, we could enquire with the author of this bio as to what those sources actually say.  Schwede 66  08:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, I should come back to this as in the meantime, some of the offline sources have hit my email inbox. All in all quite a bit of in-depth material. What I've got is the following:
 * May 2010 Metro Magazine article; full-page photo and a further page of write up. The article is about Hilton and goes into some depth.
 * Oct 2015 North & South interview; two pages with a small photo and a half-page Circos diagram. One page column of write up and the rest is Q&A.
 * 2020 Billy Apple book; several pages on the why and how of Hilton analysing Apple's DNA, how the Circos diagram came about and what it means, and how Hilton went about analysing the 1970s stool samples and what was learned from that.
 * If anybody would like to look at these sources, send me an email and I'll pass it on.  Schwede 66  02:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge with Billy Apple, or Delete. I've given this entry a lot of thought as I find the Art-Science field very interesting. However, Hilton does not meet WP:ARTIST nor WP:NSCIENTIST nor WP:NPROF. Whether they meet WP:GNG is questionable. Many of the citations are primary sources: the interviews, listings at Tech Futures Lab, and The Big Idea - these do not contribute to notability. After a BEFORE search I could find no evidence of inclusion in notable museum collections nor an exhibition record outside of the work done with the Billy Apple material. As mentioned above by, without Billy Apple, what/where is his work? Notability is not inherited. Nor could I find a substantial publishing/citation record as a scientist/academic. He organized a march and a show of $15 photos, but that's not enough for a stand alone article. Artists just do these sorts of things: make art, organize events. The citations in North & South (and some interviews) are by the article creator (who also sold objects by Hilton at her Pop-up store). Not sure if this is a "connected" COI (perhaps no money was exchanged?), or (AGF) coincidental. Merging seems like the best solution - merge the artwork to Billy Apple and the atheist march to the visual arts subsection of List of atheists (miscellaneous). Netherzone (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi there, Jenny Nicholls here. (The article creator). I want to thank you all for your interest in this page. It is a fine learning curve for me. I would like to point out a couple of things which might help. The list of exhibitions is not complete - I think there was local media about at least one which I cannot locate online. And I think the 'Billy Apple' connection is a red herring, really. These would be three radical works whoever had donated the cells. Hilton is the leading artist within this sphere in New Zealand. And considering it is an area few of our journalists remotely understand, in a country with almost no specialist art writers in our daily newspapers, his work is very well documented. He has raised serious conceptual questions - not painted petri dishes - and, since 2010, every time he has a show it is well reported in the best media in the country. I have not included earlier exhibitions here. So he certainly passes the "a significant new concept, theory, or technique" criterion within his chosen field. I have forwarded PDFs of the Metro article by Frances Morton to Schwede66 - and the pages from the book which describe how important Hilton's work has been to Apple (who some might say piggybacks on it.) I think it would be an injustice to subsume Hilton within Apple. Nine years ago, this popup shop you mention actually belonged to my partner Greg Downie, (I can see why you might think otherwise) and he sold interesting stuff from many people in it as a service to them. But I am very happy to roll with the views of such experienced editors! it has all been very interesting. Tahatai (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way, North & South and Metro both have their own Wikipedia pages, if it helps! Tahatai (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello I am wondering if you could elaborate on what you mean by So he certainly passes the "a significant new concept, theory, or technique" criterion within his chosen field. What new concept, theory or technique did he bring to the field of visual art or to science? Netherzone (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, happy to, Netherzone. 1. New technique in art: "This is more than an art-world gimmick; it’s real science. Apple’s cells are being used for research." Quote NZ art writer Anthony Byrt in Metro magazine in a long feature called 'The Immortal Artist', 2015. (online ref provided on Hilton's page). 2. New concept to New Zealand art: Here is another paragraph from Byrt's Metro piece: “I’d like art to do something that science hasn’t done, or maybe doesn’t have the nerve to do,” [Hilton] explains. “And when I was thinking about a project that would have both real art and science value, Billy’s practice fit perfectly. Normally, for ethics approval, you have to make sure the people are anonymous. But the whole point is that it’s Billy; they’re called Billy Apple® cells. So Billy signing away his privacy was a kind of ethical backdoor.” It’s the most complex and radical project Apple has been involved in since the name change. It’s also how the brand will outlast the body. “Making the cells and the DNA sequencing available to everybody and anybody means they’re effectively open-sourced,” Hilton says, “which is what a lot of brands now do, not charging for their products — Google, Facebook and the rest.” (Byrt quote ends). Hilton is creating a cell line as an art work: treating a human as a 'brand' in art/genetic terms (and this was clearly his idea, not Apple's: there are many sources for that): and that isn't all: he is using art for scientifically useful ends by donating these cells to an open source lab for research. I would call that a fresh concept and certainly a new technique in art: especially New Zealand art. Hilton has the training, unique in a NZ artist, to bring the latest in genetic and biochemical advances to NZ contemporary art. I have been writing science columns for over a decade in NZ and I have never come across this before. Anthony Byrt, I need to say, is one of New Zealand's foremost writers on contemporary art. (Probably deserves a Wikipedia page as he has written a couple of books!) And: Re science: new concept/technique and theory - if you hear of anyone else outside Hilton's group comparing the bacteria in an artist's poo samples which are over 40 years apart, or even considering doing this, I'd be interested to hear about it. This was a published peer reviewed paper. New concept? (in art, and science?) Tick. New technique? (In art, and science?) Tick. But I thank you for your rigor. Tahatai (talk) 02:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I can't see how WP:NARTISTis going to apply here. Hilton has basically no published artistic profile outside of his Billy Apple association. I searched for quite a while and could not find his birthdate, the dates for his degrees, his CV, or reviews of any shows he might have had separately from the Billy Apple collab, or even plain old event announcements for exhibitions. There are parts of the article that may be exaggerated: for example, the article says he won an award at the prestigious Ars Electronica, but I see zero mention of this anywhere on the web. The best I could find is that he might have shown there with Billy Apple. It also makes no sense to talk about him originating significant works in Bio-art; Eduardo Kac Katz was doing very similar work in the late 90s. You also do not originate significant ideas without there being quite significant book and periodical coverage of those ideas (like there is for Eduardo Kac Katz ). Which is all to say:it's a red herring to be trying to determine his notability according to WP:NARTIST, as he meets none of the criteria. I think the best we can do here is ask if he meets GNG.
 * Finally, the article creator, while well-intentioned, also seems to have a clear conflict of interest, given that she has written about the article subject and been in some kind of business with him at one point. Possibly (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi there. The writer here again. Apple and Hilton received an honorary mention in the category of hybrid art at the 2010 Prix Ars Electronica for the work: this can be found online and it is referenced on H's page. I have answered the COI points : I am not Hilton's agent, nor have I ever been. I have never taken a cut of anything he has sold. I was part writer of one of the most important N&S articles (the other writer was the deputy editor of North & South). But other writers like Frances Morton at Metro and Anthony Byrt (also Metro) could be given more weight here. I am happy to supply the PDfs (the Morton piece is not online). I must say I am a bit bemused by all of this. H is clearly using new concepts and techniques for an artist, particularly a NZ artist. He has far more high quality references than most NZ artists or writers. Tahatai (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I found and corrected the Honorary mention he got with Apple, which was originally called an award for Hilton. If you know an article subject and have met with them and written about them, we consider that to be a COI. It's not necessarily a big deal, but it needs to be disclosed on your user page in a certain way. I have left you some links on your talk page about how to do that. Possibly (talk) 06:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I saw that. I like your name Possibly BTW! Very cool. Tahatai (talk) 06:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , Hello again and thank you for sharing what you have here; please allow me to expand on two matters: (1) As to the career “Ticks”, there are dozens (if not hundreds) of artists working for over 50 years in the field of sci-art beginning in the early 1960s starting with the cybernetic artists such as Kluver-EAT, Pask, and many others. As to bodily-engaged art working with body fluids/matter, again there are many precedents across half a century, including Manzoni in the 60s, Stelarc (Australia) starting in the 70s, Mary Kelly, Acconci, etc. Regarding artists working with DNA and gene culture, there are many across the globe in addition to Kac starting in 1980s and 90s, i.e. CAE collective, Quinn, Manglano-Ovalle, Szczena, Dewey-Hagborg, Kathy High,etc. There is an entire lab in Australia devoted to this arena! Hilton may be of interest locally and to you personally, but he simply did not originate new concepts, innovate new techniques nor initiate new theories. The criteria for WP:ARTIST, WP:NSCIENTIST, WP:ACADEMIC, nor WP:GNG per nom are not met. (2) With all due respect, you do have a COI as a connected editor, having written about his work over a period of several years in relation to your employment at North & South, (and other publications?)  Even if you were a volunteer, it would still be advocacy. Regarding the sales, the Herald states  “Jenny Nicholls has ensured her pop-up shop…”, so one assumes you were promoting Hilton’s work. These well-intentioned efforts are not independent of the subject. I am sorry to be so direct, and I agree he's an interesting artist, but at this time he does not meet the notability guidelines. It would be helpful if someone could add this AfD to the Science-related and Academia-related delete-sort lists so editors could analyze his contributions in those fields, perhaps he meets those requirements. Netherzone (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This discussion looks confusing to make a decision on the AfD, so I decided to relist.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  SMB9 9thx   my edits!  10:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to have enough reliable sources to meet WP:GNG.Duncan079 (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , the sources are either primary or written by article creator, or are about Billy Apple, not him. If you find a moment, please take a closer look. Netherzone (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Additional comment to - I noticed that your user account was created just over one day ago, and you have only made 22 total edits to WP. Almost all of them were at AfDs, and that you are including various shortcut WP: policy links to many of them. How did you even find this AfD? I'm wondering how you learned so quickly, or if you have another account you use? Netherzone (talk) 05:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * has been blocked as a Sockpuppet - their !vote should be struck. Netherzone (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: There seems to be some confusion here. Sources that happen to be written by the article creator are in this case still reliable sources, and count towards GNG. User:Schwede66 has seen them and so have I. The meet all the criteria of RS, are not primary sources or puff pieces, and specifically and in depth discuss the subject and his work. If Schwede66 or I had written an identical article the sources would have been more than sufficient. COI is only relevant with regards to User:Tahatai continuing to edit the article, and any possible bias or lack of neutrality. I'm still not convinced there's a serious conflict of interest here, and the article as it stands is a balanced summary of those reliable sources. It's puzzling to me that there is an issue here. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 08:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * According to the article, Hilton has done one performance artwork not related to Billy Apple, and several works entirely based on Billy Apple. You take away Billy Apple and you have an artist who did one performance. So it's all about not inherited, and the result here should be merge to Billy Apple. Possibly (talk) 09:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * comment this is a tricky one. The independent secondary reliable sources come down to the two North & South articles, and the Central Leader article. Normally, that wouldn't be sufficient alone. The Ars Honorary Mention also, is not sufficient alone. Does it add up together? The tricky thing is that the work got the attention it did because of Billy Apple. Is Apple a collaborator, or the artists material itself? So does that mean that Hilton is insignificant, or that Hilton is crafty enough to understand what material is necessary to convey an idea into the world? Maybe the compromise is to make the article about Billy Apple® or  The Immortalisation of Billy Apple® series --Theredproject (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Plus the Otago Daily Times story, plus the Metro profile. That's five independent reliable sources, even if we exclude coverage of his collaboration with Billy Apple and the other incidental mentions. Ample to satisfy GNG, and far more than we get for most articles about New Zealand artists, writers, and rugby players. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * if we are going to use the local coverage of his one public performance towards notability, then shall we go all the way and add categories for "list of performance artists" and "New Zealand performance artists". Of course not, because he has very close to zero reputation as a performance artist. The !voting conflict here seems to be between those who will accept GNG to establish his artistic notability, versus those who think WP:NARTIST is required. It's a bit problematic to use GNG, as the sources do not demonstrate enough of an independent artistic career. He certainly does not pass any point in WP:NARTIST. I think this sets a bad precendent.    Possibly (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * He was born, he received an education, he organized a $15 photo show, he organized a debate, he collaborated with a famous artist, he did a performance piece, he co-authored four papers, he got an honorable mention, he got a little local press. This does not distinguish him as an artist, it is run-of-th-mill WP:MILL, nor does he come close to meeting Wikipedia's criteria for notable artist WP:NARTIST, nor notable academic WP:NPROF, nor notable scientist WP:NSCIENTIST nor WP:GNG because there simply is not enough WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and the work just is not there. I agree with  that if the article is kept it sets a troubling precedent for maintaining the quality of the encyclopedia.  Netherzone (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: So many keep votes are not based on policy or plain assertions so further policy based input necessary. So far the source analysis leans against the article
 * Keep Great discussion and input from the author. No issues to me on any of the usual arguments on notability and reliability.--Concertmusic (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - unconvinced by concerns that there is not enough coverage of him. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - clearly meets the requirements for sufficient in-depth sources; also meets the criteria of "new concept in art". I also fail to see any COI from the article creator and certainly no commercial relationship. MurielMary (talk) 03:12, 29 December 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.