Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoffrey Farmer


 * 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The result was   withdrawn. Article has been sufficiently changed. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 22:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Geoffrey Farmer

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Absolutely no independent coverage, likely WP:VANISPAM. No real claims of importance, rather, it seems there are claims of implied importance as efforts to advertise this topic. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 20:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This assessment of non-notability for an internationally recognized artist seems ill considered. Multiple sources are cited to support claims of Farmer's importance; there is wide consensus on this. Among the thousands of people who call themselves artists working today, only the elite top percentile will ever be shown at the Tate Modern in London. This is one of Farmer's accomplishments cited in the article. Deleting an entry about this widely acclaimed artist would undermine Wikipedia's credibility as an objective record on notable Canadian and international contemporary art activity. --Filtrate (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Internationally-recognized? Show reliable sources to prove it. A bunch of advertising "external" links don't cut it. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 21:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * External links for National Gallery of Canada and Tate Modern do cut it in establishing notability.  freshacconci  talk talk  23:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there are articles cited in reputable international art magazines, such as Artforum and Freize. The links are to the artist's exhibitions in numerous galleries internationally; including, as mentioned, the prestigious Tate Modern in London, which is cited on Wikipedia as being "the most-visited modern art gallery in the world". Critical articles; published books about the artist by reputable imprints; exhibitions in respected venues internationally: These are the ways that consensus about an artist's reputation is built. They are not "advertisements", but in fact the foundation of the whole enterprise. With all due respect, I would request that this proposal for deletion be withdrawn.
 * Comment/Question Are the Monographs listed on the page merely reproductions of his work, or, are they essays about him, his life and his work as one alternate title of one of the monographs I found suggest? Additionally, the Montreal Museum link, under external links, seem to be more of a reference than the others, it does talk about the artist for a significant portion of the article, instead of merely showing his works.  From looking at the external links it seems to me that the artist is notable in some circles, but because there are no clear independent sources to attest to his notability he the article does not meet Wikipedia guidelines.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravendrop (talk • contribs) 22:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep, probable speedy keep. Farmer has exhibited at the National Gallery of Canada, Musée d'art contemporain de Montréal and Tate Modern. That in itself establishes notability. If you google "Geoffrey Farmer" + artist you will find plenty of sources in news, books and scholar as well as web. His name is a bit common to do just a straight search.  freshacconci  talk talk  23:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * First, see WP:BURDEN. Second, there need to be reliable sources written about this man; notability is not established because of where his work was displayed. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 00:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, the sources are available, they just haven't been added to the article by an inexperienced editor. And where his work has been shown does establish notability: it's the equivalent of a reliable source in the world of art. Exhibiting at Tate Modern establishes notability (plus there would be a publication that went along with the exhibition giving you your published source). The article needs improvement, not deletion. Also, accusations of "vanity" are to be avoided as vanity is not a reason for deletion. If there's a conflict of interest we deal with that as a separate issue. Also, WP:ARTIST is the standard we use for artists. All the claims are verified already by the external links provided (and we accept the links to Tate Modern et al as reliable sources). We just need to clean up the article and add more sources, which are available from Frieze, Canadian Art, Artforum and the monographs.  freshacconci  talk talk  00:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't want to hear about something showing notability; I'd prefer to see evidence of this, added to the article. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 01:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't know you were in charge of Wikipedia. I mean, c'mon, "I don't want to hear about something showing notability". Seriously, who the hell are you? My opinion is that the subject is notable, the exhibitions provide proof of that notability and that the current lack of sources in the article are not a reason to delete. I can't imagine that the closing admin will delete this. In any case, as I said, the article needs work and with that clean-up will come the sources. AfDs last 7 days. Plenty of time.  freshacconci  talk talk  02:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is irrelevant, as is mine. The only thing that is relevant is that the article provides sufficient sources that prove the notability of the subject. Currently, there are no such sources, just you saying it's your opinion that it's notable. So? Also, ever hear of WP:ATTACK? Watch yourself. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 02:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There was no personal attack. I just don't like demanding attitudes. Again, the exhibitions are the sources and my opinion has nothing to do with it. Further sources are available and can be added at any time but not by your schedule. Did you even try to find sources before nominating for deletion? Farmer is an established artist with an international exhibition record. He easily passes WP:NOTABILITY as it stands right now without any further edits. I just feel you really jumped the gun on this nomination. We're not talking about some weekend painter here. If you'd done even a quick look you would have found this link which is the Canadian Artist Database (a reliable source) which gives thorough details on his exhibition records and a list of sources as of 2002. In the last 8 years he has built on that but let me be clear: he was notable in 2002 already. All the article needed was some tags for adding more sources and we wouldn't need to waste time with an AFD.  freshacconci  talk talk  02:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not up to me to assert notability. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 03:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The shows in significant galleries and museums demonstrate that the subject is clearly notable per WP:CREATIVE. The fact that the referencing in the article could use improvement is an editting issue and has no bearing on the notability of the article subject. -- Whpq (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Article needs format clean up, but notability is not an issue. Solo museum exhibitions alone see to that. I've added a few more external links to reviews, etc. JNW (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability would seem to be established by these links which look fairly substantial. Bus stop (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable from material added. Johnbod (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable and encyclopedic, although the article needs some work...Modernist (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per everyone else, besides, the coverage seems substancial. Longevitydude (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep AFD is not cleanup. Please see WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * An insult: "see BEFORE". The article had no references and only vanity links when I nominated it.
 * 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.