Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Tedman


 * 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. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  00:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Gary Tedman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This person does not meet the requirements of WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC. I have searched for significant coverage of their work but haven't been able to find anything. SmartSE (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not agree with your reasons. All the publications are easily variable. For example on Taylor and Francis site. I'm sorry it seems quite fake.I suggest You do not have enough knowledge on the subject matter to be able to comment on the validity of the article.


 * One point about quality: Tedman's work challenges the media politically, it is not unlikely that the media dislikes this, and the media is the source of what is called 'coverage' above. 'Coverage' seems to be a term used in the media such as the popular press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aesheticinfo (talk • contribs) 21:11, 11 August 2014 — Aesheticinfo (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I don't dispute that this is about a real academic but they do not appear to be notable. WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC explain what is required for an academic's biography to be included in Wikipedia and I am unable to find sources demonstrating that these criteria are met. Whether I have enough knowledge of the subject is immaterial. SmartSE (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is the criteria that you have referred to:


 * The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
 * IN ANSWER TO THAT THE PERSON HAS PUBLISHED MANY TIMES IN THE WORLDS LEADING JOURNAL FOR THIS SUBJECT 'RETHINKING MARXISM'. HE IS THE SECOND MOST FREQUENT CONTRIBUTOR TO THIS JOURNAL. ALL OF HIS TEXTS WERE PUT THROUGH THE PEER REVIEW PROCEDURE, WHICH IF YOU HAVE EVER HAD AN ACADEMIC TEXT PUBLISHED, IS A LONG AND ARDUOUS PROCESS.


 * The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
 * THIS PERSON HAS DEVELOPED AND CONTRIBUTED MAJOR CONCEPTS ON THE THEME OF AESTHETICS. HE HAS BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED WITH DEVELOPING THIS BY THE PEERS THAT HAVE REFERREED HIS WORK. HIS CONCEPT OF AN AESTHETIC LEVEL OF PRACTICE HAS BEEN USED AND SITED BY SEVERAL WRITERS.


 * The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
 * THE PERSON'S WORK FEATURES IN SEVERAL BOOKS. HE HAS A COLLECTIVE BODY OF WORK KNOWN TO THOSE WORKING IN THE FIELD OF AESTHETICS OR MARXIST AESTHETICS, OR IS WIKI ONLY INTERESTED IN FEATURING SUPERSTAR ACTORS OR BESTSELLER WRITERS I.E. PEOPLE WHO GAIN A GREAT DEAL OF EXPOSURE BUT WHOSE WORK IS OFTEN NOT MERITED TO BE THAT GOOD OR ENDURING?


 * If you had really bothered to research the work of this person then you would easily be able to find these things out. I'm afraid I can tell that you have little knowledge of the subject or you would not really be making statements that in fact lack any real content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aesheticinfo (talk • contribs) 23:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I am afraid that you have missed the most important part of the criteria "as substantiated through reliable sources". This means that we require sources that discuss why Tedman's is significant and this is considerably more than simply being cited by other authors. According to google scholar, the works listed in this article have barely been cited either: . I'd appreciate if you stopped assuming that I am acting maliciously: please assume good faith. SmartSE (talk) 07:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but I find this ridiculous. What do you call a reliable source? I ask you the question because you are very vague: What do you consider "as substantiated through reliable sources??." There has been many discussions as to why Tedman is significant and these are available on the internet, but if you refuse to read them what can I do? Do you not understand the peer-review process, that the journal that publishes the work has "peer-review integrity", that his essays are listed on the "Taylor and Francis" site. All this is substantiated by the academic community. The listing on Google Scholar gives 19 citing? Again what is your criteria for "barely been cited" this is totally, vague and opionated but also without substance. Given this it sounds like the only "reliable source" that you know of is yourself. I find your comments slanderous of the integrity of the peer-review process and if they continue will report them as such.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aesheticinfo (talk • contribs) 10:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I included a link to where you can read about what is considered 'reliable' here. In short, it means books, newspapers and journals and for the purposes of demonstrating notability, they need to address the subject, rather than being written by the subject. There are millions of peer-reviewed papers published every year but we do not aim to have a biography on each and every author. By 'barely cited' I mean that from what I can tell, those papers listed in the article have rarely been cited by other authors: this has 4 (2 by the subject), this has 2 (1 by the subject) and this has 2. Publication and citation density varies greatly between fields, but unless there are citations elsewhere, I think most people would agree that this is few citations. I won't bother to respond to your ad hominem and once again request that you discuss this in a civil manner. SmartSE (talk) 12:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I cannot see the link that demonstrates what is required as "reliable" can you show me this please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.39.78.234 (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

As you can see the subject is cited on Scholar: http://scholar.google.fr/scholar?hl=fr&q=%22Gary+Tedman%22&btnG=&lr= Are you saying everything the subject has written and published as peer-reviewed needs to be mentioned in the article. This is not true of other Wiki articles. This is not an author who has published one of the millions of peer-reviewed essays published each year, this author has published 8 original essays in top journals and in his book Aesthetics and Alienation, once again, I suggest, he advances new and original concepts regarding aesthetics. Again, this is mostly recognisable to those working in the discipline and given that aesthetics is a specialist and scholarly discipline such work is slower to come to the fore than pop music for example, yet I also suggest it is far more profound and consequential in the long term. It seems that there is a lack of interest in articles about serious writers but the search is on for media friendly type personalities and journalists and this is what is being qualified as notable.

There are about 9,000 entries regarding the author and his work on Google. Some of these, for example Beverley Skegg's discussion of the author: http://books.google.fr/books?id=giHmlyzuE34C&pg=PA184&lpg=PA184&dq=%22Gary+Tedman%22&source=bl&ots=1SCNjFlZoM&sig=WYMbIGARL0AGrc41rZRQc3dEYc8&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=yBjqU8bzKMim0QXZ14CICQ&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCDgU#v=onepage&q=%22Gary%20Tedman%22&f=false ...are reliable sources, as Skeggs is a University Professor, but this does not feature on Google scholar, which I suggest isn't that much of a reliable source because of this type of occlusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.39.78.234 (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

See also work by Iona Singh, and her best-selling book, also not specifically mentioned on scholar: http://books.google.fr/books?id=KjKCKs1TO0UC&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false that discusses Tedman's concepts in a comprehensive manner. Likewise in the refereed essays: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08935690410001676212#.U-ofuuN_s4A and http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10455750601164642#.U-of4uN_s4A each of which base their ideas on Tedman's concept of an aesthetic level, but also not mentioned on Google scholar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aesheticinfo (talk • contribs) 14:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC) Hello Smartse, can the article now be removed from 'articles for deletion'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aesheticinfo (talk • contribs) 12:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't think those sources make much of a difference - they are just normal academic discourse and citations. This discussion will run for at least a week and hopefully some other experienced editors will come and take a look as well. I will ask some with more expertise in the humanities if they can do so. SmartSE (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

May I ask what you require other than "normal academic discourse and citations." are you looking for something other than normal? You have asked that the work be "substantiated through reliable sources". Are you saying these are not reliable sources, is it because they are normal? What extra-normal sources will you consider reliable? Why do you find work published in peer-review journals "unreliable", surely these are the most reliable sources and again please state what YOU do find reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aesheticinfo (talk • contribs) 13:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * We're going round in circles and I still don't think you've grasped how we determine the notability of a subject. Taking an example of an article I wrote, Redcliffe Salaman is primarily notable due to the first two sources - an obituary in the Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society and an entry in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, further his substantial impact is shown by his book being called 'unprecented' 50 years later. SmartSE (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Well this subject is never going to fulfil that criteria, firstly, he is not dead yet, and secondly 50 years are not up yet...You seem to bypass what Redcliffe Salaman has actually produced and give no reference to that in your reasons. The work of the author in question has been called "groundbreaking" and "brilliant" and these critiques can also be added to the article if you would like. We are not going round in circles, after the evidence placed in front of you either you don't have enough knowledge to judge the validity of this person's work or you have your own political agenda with regard to it.


 * Note I have asked and his talk page stalkers if they can have a look at this discussion. SmartSE (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Thanks for pinging me, SmartSE. I can't find anything either--in MUSE, EBSCO, MLA. What is required for this person to pass PROF is evidence that the person has had an influence on the field. I cannot find a single review of any of his books, and while Google Scholar delivers a few mentions of his name (including in Class, Self, Culture, where he's mentioned once), I don't see any substantial coverage of his work. Even if Zero was a well-established and reputable press (I had never heard of it and it doesn't have much of a presence), having a book published by them is not in itself a reason to assume notability. In short, publishing is normal activity for any scholar; being written about is what makes notability. But maybe can find more than I can. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Tedman's work is covered comprehensibly in the book Color, Facture, Art and Design, mentioned in the article, but if the text is not on-line how will you know this. Here is a link to a review of Tedman's book : http://marxandphilosophy.org.uk/reviewofbooks/reviews/2013/831
 * Please sign your messages, and have a look at Indentation. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Your comments do not seem to be "in good faith" with the authors of this page who clearly have substantial knowledge of the subject. The ideas of the subject are well-known in the specialist field of Marxist Aesthetics (see wiki Marxist Aesthetic page)however some of his references such as in the book Color, Facture, Art and Design are not available on-line. Signed Althusserian.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Althusserian (talk • contribs) 15:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that's not a very nice thing to say. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep by : this placed here for clarity's sake-- Drmies (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete In addition to the databases checked by Drmies and others, I had a look at the Web of Science (which includes the Arts and Humanities Citation Index), but there is no "Tedman G" in that database at all. In general, I'm not a big fan of GScholar, because it invariably overestimates the impact and number of citations, but in this case, that is actually revealing. The paltry citation record means that this person has not (yet?) made a measurable impact on his field. So, yes, he has a number of peer-reviewed publications, but publishing is what we academics do for a living and that in itself doesn't make one notable, only demonstrable impact does. To the SPAs (SPA=single purpose account) here, I would like to add that this is in no way a value judgment. It is not up to us, WP editors, to decide what is important or not. As an encyclopedia, we do not cover our own judgments and opinions, but only what others have written. If Tedman's contributions are as valuable as you say, then I don't doubt that this will soon be evident (without waiting 50 years) in the citation record, because other people will write about his ideas. Please realize that all editors here are editing in good faith. Yes, perhaps you are more knowledgeable about this field than the other people here are, but those other people are obviously more knowledgeable about how and why things are done in particular ways at WP. Please read the policies that others have linked to above (especially WP:RS) and hopefully you will then understand better the motivation behind the "delete" !votes. --Randykitty (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * KeepOk thanks. signed Aesheticinfo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aesheticinfo (talk • contribs) 16:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Randykitty and thank you for referring me to the deletion procedures page. I have decided to remove the deletion tag from Tedman's article, as is suggested is my right. I will explain the reasons why: I feel I am qualified within this field enough to know that although the subject's work has not been written about or referred to by a great number of writers, the ones that have referred to it find it extremely important and original and in this sense it is very influential. I feel this merits a certain notability in terms of quality and not quantity. The work has depth and is intense in a way, that many academics who sometimes just churn out papers in an inventory like fashion and without much substance, do not have. I hope you are able to understand the spirit of this decision. regards, signed aesheticinfo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aesheticinfo (talk • contribs) 16:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * , you may not remove that template. A decision to keep or delete will be made based on a community discussion (this one right here). Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * KEEP I am familiar with the work of this subject and agree with Althusserian and aesheticinfo. Signed socrates12345 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates12345 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * SPI filed at Sockpuppet investigations/Aesheticinfo. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete There is only one citation, and it is not notable. None of the listed articles or books are about him, they are about the topic area he works in. Therefore, there are no 3rd party references that establish notability. LaMona (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

'''* I will say no more on this, whether to Delete or not Delete, but, Drmies, I note that you have made biographies of people such as Mary Hooper (author) and presumably the criteria you are applying very strictly here could equally be applied to this writer. Also the same argument about sockpuppetry, where your friends all make the same argument, which may or may not be true, but from the point of view of Wikipedia criteria is not valid. Why are you so interested in this deletion? Can you clarify your reasons because I think mine fulfil at least the minimum criteria for inclusion. My worry is, that any interested party could place many borderline, dull, biographies such as Mary Hooperon Wikipedia simply to justify acting as a kind of gang with a political motive to "police" political entries that  they disagree with. I am not accusing you of this but I have suspicions that it may be happening in some cases, so I say this openly. This would be bad for Wikipedia whether from the right or the left.Aestheticinfo 19:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)'''
 * Delete We have two ways of determining whether we should have an article about a person. One is the general guideline, WP:GNG or WP:BIO, which requires that independent reliable sources have written significantly about the person. That is not the case for this subject. The other is specifically for academics, WP:PROF, which requires that the person's own writing must have been significantly cited by other academics, as a way of showing that the person is a leader or influential in their field. Here is the citation record for Mr. Tedman ; it shows very few citations of his work by other people. So this guideline does not qualify him either. The result is that the article should be deleted as not meeting Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. --MelanieN (talk) 02:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per OP and previous posters, there is insufficient evidence of notability -- either general or academic -- to warrant inclusion. --Larry (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:ACADEMIC, fails WP:NOTEBLP, lacks significant coverage, lacks adequate notice in his own profession. --Bejnar (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * KEEP In Wikipedia: Notability- General nobability guideline, it states; "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Therefore... See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources: Scholarship - Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.

And Re Rethinking Marxism Abstracting and indexing[edit] This journal is abstracted and indexed in the following databases:

America: History and Life CSA Worldwide Political Science Abstracts International Bibliography of the Social Sciences VINITI Database RAS Scopus SocINDEX

also on Wikipedia"s reliable third-party sources: How to meet the requirement[edit] An article must be based upon reliable third-party sources, and meets this requirement if:

Reliable: A third-party source is reliable if it has standards of peer review and fact-checking. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, the more reliable the publication. 90.39.78.234 (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Aestheticinfo 07:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I note Drmies that you have an article entitled Alan Marks for example. I suggest that Gary Tedman's work is at least parallel to that of Alan Marks in terms of notability. Why however do you merit that Tedman's article should be deleted? Likewise with Patricia Rinehart? ...however personally I see no problem with your listings, perhaps they could be of use... Aestheticinfo 08:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Aesheticinfo, I'm striking out your word "keep" above; you only get to say "keep" or "delete" once, in effect that is your "vote". "Rethinking Marxism" may be a scholarly peer-reviewed journal, but that's not the problem. The problem is the lack of any significant writing ABOUT Mr. Tedman, there or anywhere else. Also, please also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; that is not an argument that carries any weight here. --MelanieN (talk) 08:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "we"? Am I not a part of 'we'?


 * The main article on Tedman carries a number of independent citations of which there are others. It is true that there are not the amount that usually come with the strict sciences.
 * I also suggest that many contributors to this delete page seem to come more from science backgrounds where the databases and the method of citation are different. Aestheticinfo 09:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * One point about quality: Tedman's work challenges the media politically, it is not unlikely that the media dislikes this, and the media is the source of what is called 'coverage' above. 'Coverage' seems to be a term used in the media such as the popular press.Aestheticinfo 09:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I am new to this and will make mistakes. It would be nice if you would appreciate this. Yes I do realise that being new is not an excuse too! Aestheticinfo 11:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Note. Aesthetics and Aliennation. 2012. Zero Books. Listed on Worldcat.org at numerous libraries including Harvard, Yale, Berkeley and Duke.Aestheticinfo 17:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * By the way, I wrote this entry. I am not the subject and the subject had no knowledge of it. I am not an institution or backed by any institution, I am independent. Aestheticinfo 18:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (shout)  @ 19:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)




 * I notice that Smartse states earlier that he was going to ask other community members. This was clearly canvassing support for his own opinions which has prevented a correct discussion regarding the page. These members also repeatedly use abbreviations, which is confusing to less experienced community members such as myself. I notice again that the concept of "quality" of the work, seems totally omitted from the conversation.Aestheticinfo 22:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It was a notification, not canvassing as we weren't really getting anywhere squabbling between ourselves were we? Asking other experienced editors was the sensible way to make sure I hadn't completely misjudged this. I can't recall interacting with LaMona, MelanieN, Traveling Man (Larry) or Bejnar in the past either, so they have seemingly come here from WP:AFD and made their own decision about the article. How is it possible for us to judge quality when there has been so little coverage? As editors it is not up to us to decide whether something is of quality or not, we follow the published sources (of which there are none discussing the subject). SmartSE (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - publishing and being the subject of a publication are not the same thing. We require the latter and arguments that the subject is responsible for the former don't carry much weight.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 02:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Does not appear to fulfill WP:ACADEMIC — Preceding unsigned comment added by AAA3AAA (talk • contribs) 10:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * We weren't getting anywhere because you and others keep repeating the same thing over and over without engaging in any genuine discussion.

There are a number of issues here;

'Coverage'. What do you mean by this?

Is it an appropriate term for this subject: and for a person who is presenting a radical political position? Wikipedia criteria is not only concerned with "coverage". I say it again, it sounds like you mean popular media coverage.

There are references and reliable sources, in particular of high quality on the article page. You are ignoring these. Why?

The subject's work is antagonistic to the media, yet the media is the place that would determine coverage. It would be asking the improbable to expect the media to be very interested in this subject. Aesthetics is already not exactly part of mainstream media coverage or even the academic mainstream. This does not mean it is not important.

The concept of the aesthetic level is an analysis of how feelings function in relation to the economic and the social. As Althusser's Ideological State Apparatuses enable an understanding of the methods by which ideology affects subjects in the political sense, the aeshetic level refers to this control on the level of feelings and mediation. Tedman has defined it using Marxist theory, Freud, Althusser and Walter Benjamin. It is a hugely neglected area with potential to open up a new territory for Marxist analysis.

The coverage that exists is not in places where you would find it on-line, but exists in books and journals not freely available on the internet. I have more references that can be placed in the article but this would begin to make it too long in my opinion. I can accept that this person is relatively new and does not warrant reams of text, but the work is notable. I would suggest there is also a kind of notability sometimes created by a lack of publicity, quite strange in the circumstances, if you care to study them seriously. The popular media and the academy choose what they think is safe to look at and highlight but as we all know this is not always reliable, especially with challenging and new theories. This certainly is a theory of media, and by explaining what the media does in critical detail, can one expect the current media to celebrate that?

Just a word on the question of the reputability of Zero Books. Zero Books has a reputation for publishing a number of new radical authors such as Owen Hatherley and Laurie Penny, and it has been successful in this.Aestheticinfo 19:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "...there is also a kind of notability sometimes created by a lack of publicity...". Dude, just stop. We've shown you what is required and we've (believe it or not) heard these ridiculous arguments before. You're not going to get special treatment or special consideration or some special criteria by which this subject is assessed different to all others. Stop posting incoherent walls of text - you're not helping yourself. Read the guidelines and play by them of go and post your "information" somewhere else.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 22:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * if there ever was a case of WP:BLUDGEON, aesthetic info meets it. LibStar (talk) 09:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * strong delete I've been on Wikipedia for several years and no argument has convinced me more of a case for a lack of reliable sources than the completely illogical "...there is also a kind of notability sometimes created by a lack of publicity..." It's as if this person has ironically admitted lack of notability. And please aesthetic info, no long winded response to this. LibStar (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I have given reliable academic sources, to keep repeating this is not helping the discussion. Also please refrain from insults such as "longwinded". What is this "We" thing? It presents me as "the other" and you as the "in-crowd". I am finding this almost like racism. The issue of quality is important because in the end that is the only determinant. There seems to be an awful lot of people interested in deleting this article, for something so allegedly not notable. Aestheticinfo 17:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Also Libstar, saying "completely illogical" is not an argument, it is just a statement. Why do you, and others who want deletion completely avoid talking about the subject matter? And again, I need to say that lack of publicity does not mean lack or notability. You, along with most of the others on this page, continue to confuse the two. Aestheticinfo 18:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * like racism? your arguments are getting weaker and weaker. LibStar (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Quality" is only indirectly important here. If something is very good, and people write about that in reliable sources, then it is notable. If something is very bad, and people write about that in reliable sources, then it is notable, too. Notability is not the same thing as "deserving", "quality", and such, only about whether something has been noted and we can verify that in reliable sources. If you don't get acquainted with these things, then this AfD debate will remain mysterious to you... --Randykitty (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Question for Aesthetic info do you have a connection to Gary Tedman? LibStar (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes of course I have a connection with Gary Tedman. I have used his concept of an aesthetic level of practice to explain and analyse art and design, publishing several peer-reviewed essays and books on the theme. I also know him.Aestheticinfo 06:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aesheticinfo (talk • contribs)
 * please read our conflict of interest guidelines. this explains your behavior regarding this article. LibStar (talk) 07:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Question for SmartSE, Drmies, Randykitty, Libstar, Stalwart1111, LaMona, Melanie N Benjar: Do any of you have a connection?

By the way my relation to the subject does not contravene Wikipedia rules on conflict of interest such as: "when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." because it is in the interests of Wikipedia to have such information and references on their site and this is the most important issue here, as far as I am concerned. The general gist of this Afd page seems sided against articles with intellectual-philosophical content and related questions, it is important for Wikipedia to balance that.Aestheticinfo 10:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC) (talk) 07:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! We're all here to improve this online encyclopedia and promote a neutral point of view. BTW, thanks for that gem about "a kind of notability sometimes created by a lack of publicity", that really made my day! --Randykitty (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the converse must be true, that is, too much publicity is kind of sign that an article must be deleted. I have zero connection to other editors or indeed your friend Tedman.LibStar (talk) 11:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per our notability & verifiability guidelines, per now-self-admitted COI, and per "there is also a kind of notability sometimes created by a lack of publicity" being one of the flat-out goofiest things I've heard here in many years, and that's saying something. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

On this goofy idea: well, there are plenty of figures in history who were considered not notable in their lifetimes who turned out to be, strangely, very notable later, like Vermeer for instance, died penniless and not in Wikipedia at all believe it or not. I think this is not healthy, only time can tell really for anyone, but we are only talking about notability, not mega stardom or Antonio Banderas-like status. Here we are dealing with Marxist Aesthetics, not blockbuster films. But I would still argue there is leeway in Wikipedia's criteria for notability that's sensible and does not reflect the delete comments 'vote stacked' here. The refusal to discuss seems to me to be politically motivated, for instance the studious avoidance of any discussion of quality, the resort to teenage type insults and provocations etc, all very like typical rightist trolling on blogs etc... By the way, conflict of interest is when you put the subject of the article ahead of Wikipedia's interest, I do not think I have done that, I am writing all this in good faith, I like Wikipedia, such a free resource is very good, but it takes work and time and serious thought, I don't see much evidence of that here. Aestheticinfo 19:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This is amazing. You are all saying exactly the same things, and insulting. And refuse to enter into any real debate or conversation, and refuse to answer any of my questions. Its as if I've walked into someone's personal toyroom.


 * One point: in Marxist aesthetics especially and in aesthetics in general (in philosophy), there are very few authors who have presented a complete theory on this subject, right or wrong, good or bad, Marcuse perhaps, but you could not call this a theory, more a discussion. There is Adorno's 'Aesthetic Theory' but this too is not really a theory. Gary Tedman's work is notable in this respect, on the left, though there is also Jacques Ranciere. Aestheticinfo 20:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * One consequence of COI is often that people cannot judge something objectively anymore and start to overestimate its importance. Then, if other editors disagree with them, it is clear that thus cannot be for any rational reason, hence they must be right-wing trolls. Funny, last week I was a left-wing antisemite (although it is possible that that particular editor thought I was a right-wing Zionist). --Randykitty (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I would call the statements and emotive insults on this page made by most of the editors, irrational. Any attempt to lead them towards making coherent or rational explanations are shouted down, ignored or called 'goofy'? Aestheticinfo 21:34, 22 August 2014 (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.