Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Horvitz


 * 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. I'm closing this early per SNOW. There is no need for the discussion to continue here, since the issue is not deletion via our policies. DGG's argument and further comments provide enough of a rationale (in short, there is no rationale for deletion), and his advice re:editing the article should be heeded. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

David Horvitz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Hello, my name is Joe, and I'm an intern and have helped David Horvitz on many of his Wikipedia based projects. His newest endeavor is to attempt to delete his own Wikipedia page. I want to be able to help him and accomplish that. I'm new to the whol Wiki editing/deleting and I've accidentally thought deleting the content would bring on a deletion, but it brought on moderators claiming me as an abuser and vandal, which is incorrect. I want to be able delete the page properly and it's public knowledge that the artist wants this to happen, if you can help me with this and provide me the information to do so according to Wikipedia's rules and regulations, I'd greatly appreciate it. I've attached a link from ArtInfo that mentions this project of his to delete his own Wikipedia page. Any help would be great! http://www.blouinartinfo.com/news/story/898465/emerging-david-horvitzs-multiversed-multimedia-and-oft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joebunkeo (talk • contribs)


 * Comment-- As far as notability, the current sources are mixed. Many are primary sources but others are legitimate secondary sources. Does the sum total of those secondary sources meet the notability criteria of WP:BLP? Not sure. I think that if Horvitz wants to request the deletion of his WP bio he would need to contact WP:OTRS. Interested parties might want to read this section of the BLP guideline.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 16:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, sufficiently notable artist. but remove the self-referential material about his attempt to delete his article on WP. As far as I can tell, both that, and this deletion request are part of a game he is playing with us,.  DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello DGG, In regards to David Horvitz's "game" of deleting his Wikipedia page
 * I'd like to explain, if it's not already known, that Horvitz is a conceptual absurdist artist. Such projects in a way is a performance, a commentary on social media and technology. I see no harm in deleting the page for it becomes a form of performance art. I understand there is protocol but to uphold protocol for a situation that will generate no controversy seems silly. To delete would be trivial, so why not support its deletion? A game is meant to tease to entertain, but this is a new form of participatory art with a social commentary about the web and the accessibility to information. It in no way is to undermine WP as an insult or as a jest. This is art and to have the authorization to delete the page would complete the work. I hope you understand and find in favor of assisting in the proper deletion of David Horvitz's WP page. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joebunkeo (talk • contribs) 19:18, 13 September 2013‎


 * Keep No reason has been given for deletion: we don't delete an article just because someone say they want it deleted. David Horvitz does not own this article, and has no right to demand its removal. He has chosen to make himself a public figure, and can't pick and choose what public media write about him. (Indeed, he has not only made himself a public figure, but has gone out of his way to call attention to himself by means of various gimmicks, such as publicly announcing his attempt to remove this Wikipedia article one sentence at a time.) He clearly satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, having gone to considerable effort to get himself noticed and discussed. As for the stuff about his being a "conceptual absurdist artist", and deleting this article being a "commentary on social media and technology", Wikipedia is not the place for that. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank You For you time and your consideration, it seems as though Wikipedia is no place for contemporary art for it's regulated and censored by those that deem it an unfit place for such actions and gestures. It's unfortunate the Wikipedia community fails to see the great potential of WP as an artistic medium. But I digress. Thank you and let me know if there is any possibility or under different circumstances that we can work together to allow the deletion of this page. Bests. Joebunkeo (talk), 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You're right: just as we are not a place for original scholarship, or original fiction, we are not a place of original participatory art. I regard this sort of thing as similar to the attempts of professors to conduct social media experiments on WP by having their students deliberately insert false information to see if it gets deleted.  We're an encyclopedia, and people playing this sort of game diminishes the trust users have in the objectivity of the contents. I understand how you can feel there is nothing wrong in using us as a subject for artistic play and experimentation, but what sort of a site would we be that did not defend itself?  DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep and protect against vandalism. This is an encyclopedia, not a grocery store, art gallery, brothel or Jain temple. We should have no patience with those who would vandalize us in the name of "art". I sense SNOW coming on. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  23:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait. This isn't a brothel? I've wasted 7 years of my life for nothing.  freshacconci  talk to me  02:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The absurdist work of art in this case may well be the story of the failure of this notable artist to delete Wikipedia's biography of him. There is nothing absurd about our response. We are creating a free encyclopedia with millions of articles about notable topics. This is one of them.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  01:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, and it really seems that Christmas is arriving to the Northern Hemisphere. I told to Joe that "being requested by Horvitz" is not a reason to delete the page, and he is not, because he doesn't own the article. Is like if Lady Gaga request her pages deleted, she's the subject of them, not the owner of them. Horvitz is notable under Wikipedia's WP:GNG, and if there is no real reason to delete his page other than a request from him, there is no reason to delete the page. If Horvitz didn't mean to be famous, he shouldn't became famous in the first place. The page should be kept, semi-protected and still having PC-2 per WP:IAR. As long as the Good-Faith Blanking continues, the page shouldn't be blanked or unprotected. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  02:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and protect for all the reasons stated above: He is clearly notable. He doesn't own the page. The edits are not NPOV. The editors are clearly too close to him: as David's intern, Joebunkeo shouldn't be editing the page. All that said, make no mistake: this effort to have his Wikipedia page remove is one of David's works. Cullen328, it will a complete work whether he is able to get it deleted or not (we can't stop it). Even provoking this conversation is part of the work. Which brings me to the problem of excluding anything about Wikipedia from Wikipedia: If this ends up being written about by third party sources, we cannot exclude its potential discussion in the article itself.--Theredproject (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Whenever someone attempts one of these projects the discussion inevitably becomes part of the actual project and we more or less legitimize it. We can't win unless a speedy delete is developed where this sort of thing can be removed without the debate. But such is the nature of this sort of website.  freshacconci  talk to me  14:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep. Per everyone else above. Wikipedia is not meant for personal projects, artistic interventions, pranks, subversive actions or hactivism. It's an encyclopedia and a tertiary source of information, nothing more. These sorts of pet projects are nothing new or original and it is certainly not censorship to keep them off Wikipedia (oh, how I wish people would learn what censorship actually is and stop throwing it around whenever something stupid is removed from Wikipedia. Talk to Syrians about how you're being oppressed by Wikipedia's rules). I'm sure there are plenty of hidden projects currently on Wikipedia that no one has found yet but we certainly cannot be expected play along with something that is frankly not even interesting, and even if it was, we still wouldn't. If Horvitz was not notable, I'd happily !vote for delete but it appears he just passes WP:GNG. But I'm sure now his ego can be massaged a bit but having his notability confirmed and he can play the victim by the oppressive rules of draconian Wikipedia and its anti-contemporary art rules. We're such fascists, aren't we?  freshacconci  talk to me  14:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * On the fence . If Wikipedia's moderators perpetual battle with this artist is actually feeding into it, why do we persist in memorializing him by maintaining a page about him? It seems like a Catch 22, but if WP wants to create a reputable and academic encyclopedia, there should be no toleration and no recognition of such characters no matter the notability. That's my opinion, but I understand currently all the existing information upholds the rules and regulations to uphold its existence, but I'd rather just see gone forever and never to be heard from again Thunderheadgw87  talk to me  14:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (I am striking the "On the fence" marking, as I assume this is superseded by your "keep" below.) Your opinion that "there should be no toleration and no recognition of such characters no matter the notability" is contrary to Wikipedia policy. We do not keep or delete articles about people on the basis of whether we like or dislike what those people do, and doing so would be contrary to the neutral point of view policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * On the fence too - where exactly is the significant reliable coverage about Horvitz? People above seem to be arguing to keep the article without providing any evidence. The 2009 LA Times exhibition review is the only reliable coverage I can see, the remainder is written by Horvitz. On the basis of WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE he doesn't meet notability criteria based on the current sources. As a practising artist and long-term Wikipedia editor I find Horvitz's use of Wikipedia in his work very interesting indeed, but let's see the wood for the trees here (or other suitable mashed metaphor). Rather than slap his intern down for the sake of it, let's look for coverage about him. This guy seems to thrive on self-publicity! Sionk (talk) 09:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

 Thunderheadgw87  talk to me  14:35, 1i September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG and Freshacconci. And perhaps Horvitz should move on and play his games on Facebook.  Yinta n  11:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. This discussion is slowly becoming very negative for it is now become a place to pass judgement on the field of art. As moderators we are not here to insult, pass judgement on what is and what is not art. Take the artist and the intern out of the equation. The issue at hand is the validity and purpose of this article. If this article continues to be beacon for debate then is not better to end the debate at all by deleting the article. The artist feeds off our continued discussion. He gains more. What does WP gain? The inner workings and community of WP is being exposed and we are damage control. We must remain unbias and professional. Some of the previous comments seem prejudice. To delete this article will give the artist an ego stroke but I believe it rid WP of a possible avalanche of more and similar activity. Eradicate the pest before it becomes an infestation. I believe WP can afford to delete this article. In the bigger scheme of WP, the lost of this article will actually display WP's mission of cleaning up its encyclopedia and work towards academic credibility.
 * There is no "pass[ing] judgement on what is and what is not art". The issue is whether the person in question is or is not the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, whether or not his work is art. We would keep an article about someone claiming to be an artist who satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines whether we think he or she really is an artist or not, and likewise we would delete an article about someone claiming to be an artist who does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines whether we think he or she really is an artist or not. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Stand by my Delete His notability is at question right at the point when we question it. There has been judgement by moderators expressing prejudice and dislike in comments by such users as Orange Mike and Cullen talking about silly things as brothels and Jain temples. There is no need for that in this discussion, but yet no one else has called them out for such unprofessional behavior. Let the editors like Horvitz and the intern be questioned for their intentions and editing behavior, but to allow moderators to express such bias in my mind nullifies any argument. This has escaped the realm of professional maintenance and upkeep of WP policies. I may not fully understand the ins and outs of the notability criteria, but why do moderators overlook such snide comments about the artist, intern, and the so called art at hand? I support a path towards deletion only on the basis that this has snowballed out of control into two sects, Wikipedia as Enyclopedia vs. Wikipedia as Endless Potential for Experimentation and Art. If we are to keep this article, then so be it, but as someone mentioned earlier, find some stronger sources than those currently included in the article and keep the childish remarks out of it. Elaborate on the reasons, the policies, and not on the subject   Thunderheadgw87 n   11:40, 20 September 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.