Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Art Wales


 * 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. The assertions that there is significant coverage definitely lack substance; still, it has been three weeks and nobody but the nominator has advocated for deletion. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

David Art Wales

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As the article states, David Art Wales is "best known" for creating Guru Adrian (whose Wikipedia page was merged with this one some years ago). He did this in the 1980s while working at Alan, the fanzine of the small Australian radio station Triple Jay — a magazine so obscure I cannot find any record of it at any Australian library.

Wales was then a host on the Australian TV show "Edge of the Wedge" which was cancelled after a few months. Apparently, some American studios expressed interest in making a TV show about Guru Adrian, but none ever did.

Since then, Wales has took part in several pranks and projects. It's hard to tell where the pranks end and the projects begin. Was "Nice Enterprises" a real business? Was his job at the bowling alley real? Did any else take part in Project Naughties? What is the point of the "Prudent Boozers"? And, moreover, who was Guru Adrian? Some of this seems to be puffery, like his girlfriend's burlesque show and his Toyota job. The article claims he launched Cinelan with Morgan Spurlock, but its website makes no mention of him. There is no evidence he influenced the term "noughties". Most of the sources come from a digitised scrapbook, which documents his exploits stretching back to when he was seven, which must have been compiled by Wales himself or someone close to him. And this article and the the old Guru Adrian article have the same feel. I don't think Wales is notable enough for Wikipedia. He was almost famous. He is mentioned at the Triple Jay article, and that is enough to cover his notability and that of his creation, Guru Adrian. Jack Upland (talk) 09:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has three issues. First, many of the sources are self-published reprints of actual published articles (via predigitalarchive.com). This is sub-optimal, as the article subject (presumably) is providing copies of the sources rather than the sources. To Quote WP:N, " Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article". We know via these copies of sources that enough sources to establish notability clearly do exist, so GNG is met and the subject is notable.  The second issue is that the sources should be the original versions of the actual sources, and the third issue is that there seems to be some promotional editing going on here. But it certainly meets the criteria to be kept.96.127.242.226 (talk) 04:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Which sources establish notability? He has been mentioned in articles or interviewed multiple times for multiple reasons over 40 years. A lot of people are featured in the media occasionally, particularly if they are publicity-seeking, which Wales obviously is. I have been myself. Does that mean all of us, if we keep the clippings etc, become notable enough to have an article?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Publicity-seeking is a non-issue. What matters is whether one got the publicity. If you look at the sources in the article they clearly establish in-depth coverage by multiple reliable independent publications. And yes, if you have enough clippings of media coverage about yours truly, you can have an article. In-depth coverage by multiple reliable independent publications is all it takes.96.127.242.226 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that's an untenable position. Many people have gleaned some publicity over 40 years of publicity-seeking (or whatever). The Sydney Morning Herald article from 1998, "A Job for the Guru" is the best source for establishing notability. But it introduces him by asking, "Minor eccentric or major talent"? and goes on to float the possibility that Guru Adrian will get an American TV deal. I don't think he's a major talent (or much of an eccentric) and I don't think there was a TV deal. The various sources don't together establish anything. They don't establish he's a notable artist. They establish he's a publicity seeker, who has perpetrated various jokes, hoaxes, publicity stunts, artworks etc since he was age 7. I'm not criticising him, and I wish him luck, but I don't think he belongs in an encyclopedia. And it doesn't seem that most people think that he does. No one has leapt in and said that Guru Adrian rocked their down under world. No one has produced new sources. We're left with an article based on a old scrapbook. What's the point?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a very tenable position as it relies on our notability policy. Setting aside comments on his talent and whether he is a publicity-seeker (all artists are, btw!), the in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources establish notability. The scrapbook argument does not wash as clearly it proves the exiistence of multiple reliable sources. You or I might not like his ilk, but he has been covered more than enough in RS to be notable.96.127.242.226 (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You're just repeating the same line without answering my points. Have you tried Googling Wales? Nothing shows up, except things he (or an associate) has put up. That's strange for a notable person.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Can I add for clarification: I do not dislike Wales, or have anything against him. He seems amusing, but that's it...--Jack Upland (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Keep The article is reasonably well-sourced, and as he received good coverage in the news media, he qualify under WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON. Hzh (talk) 11:24, 21 July 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.