Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Allen Wood


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Allen Wood
NN vanity entry of artist of questionable notability - googling "Joseph Allen Wood" pulls two hits, not related; other searches not definitive. See related AfDs on White Caps and Duane Jackson. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. -- Captain Disdain 11:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. He has some talent, I tell you what. I see nothing biased in this article.

LBJ TEXAN (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. --Nlu 12:33, 3 November 2005
 * Delete per nom. PJM 13:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It is sad that people who become so complacent in their arrogance forget what it is to be kind. I suppose such persons are worthy of numerous unedited pages and I am worth not a one. I might assume the moral high ground and delete it myself, since good intentions are found nowhere amongst the "mental giants." Therefore, I should take my good intentions with me. You may be giants, but your hearts are small, and your life is long; remember who you have trampled in your wake.-- Joseph Wood Artist


 * Joseph, I'm sad to see you go since you might have turned out a good editor here, but for this article my vote will have to be delete. As for certain editors who have dealt with this article (and others) and this particular user, I consider their behaviour in blatant violation of WP:FAITH and WP:BITE. We should not be driving away newcomers like you do, gentlemen. - ulayiti (talk)  15:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Ulayiti, I disagree. The sock puppetry involved in this case proves that the skepticism was correct.  --Nlu 17:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Ulayiti for your assistance. My attitude reflects no concerns at all towards you and your decision. I am however disgusted with the condescending tone of some of your contemporaries, who at no time attempted to give me a shot at making a halfway decent edit. You are the most professional one here it seems, and they could learn a lesson in square-dealing from you. I dont know what sock-puppetry is, but it sounds like a cry for help.

Joseph Wood

Postscript--My guess is that these people choose to focus on sockpuppets and what is deletable in their eyes, instead of trying to help others construct a page in the way "the romans do." Perhaps if they took your approach, they would have less of what they so complain about.

When I was a bit younger, there was no shortage of successful or wise elder gentlemen and lady who did not condescend to your obtuse behavior. Instead they saw nothing but value in attempting to help along a young newcomer who had ambitions. It is called courtesy. They did everything in their power to share some of what they had learned, rather than criticizing those that may possibly look up to them. I was taught that you must learn courtesy to deal with others. I suppose they do not teach old-fashioned goodness at your Ivy-League schools, and apparently no one had the home version either.

If I am successful in my endeavors, I will rememeber to try and help those who need it the most. Remember this gentlemen, after you leave this mortal coil, it is not your resume and accolades that will be remembered--but instead your kindness, or discourtesy. You just learned that lesson for free.
 * Whatever. Don't try to act as the victim in this matter.  You know what you did.  You know what you wrote.  --Nlu 22:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You reap what you sow.

You dont know me and I dont know you. Let's try though to at least let bygones be bygones. Don't mess with a Missourian, because they will call you on it everytime. I am editing now only in good faith that my article is one that will stay, so I am trying to improve upon it by wiki standards. What problems does it have that you see? I am trying to compromise with you. Your advice would be helpful.


 * You note below that you were repeatedly blocked under various sock-puppets. I blocked you, multiple times, for obvious reasons - A good piece of advice is to not vandalise user pages with racist remarks.  See the list of sock-puppets banned here for further examples of multiple article reversions (removing AfD tags and the like), and multiple blatant vandalisms accross 4 or 5 user pages, including my own, which I had to have protected for the first time in a year of editing.  If you are now editing in good faith, which I intend to believe, then welcome.  However, your article does not warrant inclusion because you are not notable enough, yet.  In time, when you are, then someone else will see fit to include you, along with verifiable evidence of notability.  Simply including yourself because you feel like doing so is vanity.  Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, and good luck with your art career.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I am a big enough man to say I'm sorry. Nlu, if I came off offensive, it was because I was offended. I will bear with you, if you can with me. Truce? JW

PS--I dont understand what it is that makes my article delete-worthy? At first, I was told that it was not from a neutral POV, so I deleted such portions that might be construed in that way. Next, Someone commented on my vanity, so I deleted portions of the article that did not reflect the nature of its value as a description of the person's notability.

Then becoming a so-called vandal, my work was repeatedly reverted back before these constructive edits. That is why I became a bit irritated.

I ask myself, what does a guy have to do to make someone lay off? Why was I targeted so bad? If it is retaliation, and not the nature of it's content, then it should stand, minus a few edits. If, on the other hand, it is indeed the content that has need for editing--then why doesnt a few knowledgeble caring wiki members help me improve the quality?

deletion was a little premature last night, ten minutes after my first time writing an article. I admit I needed help. I will take all/any suggestions if someone cares enough to assist rather than destroy/needlessly belittle.

Joseph Wood

Also, consider that most right-minded adults wont resort to such measures such as sock-puppetry if they have a constructive relationship with others, and feel welcomed and assisted. I had to edit my file, and people were blocking me. What I did in retaliation was not good either, but AS I SAW, THOSE MEMBERS ARE MORE CAPABLE THAN I AT RESTORING THEIR WORK.

Lets work together in the future.

Joe Wood


 * Delete. It seems to me that Joseph Wood may be an artist with potential but who is mainly known in the St Louis Missouri. He may well develop a national or even international reputation making him eligible for an article but as yet, he is not yet notable enough. Capitalistroadster 00:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comments about my posted work. If you take the time to visit [website] you would see that I am quite serious and active in producing quality works of art, and unlike others, do not simply do the same type of work--over and over again.

You are correct that I am not nationally known. I can tell you that my work is hanging in Austrailia, Norway, Brooklyn, Texas, New Orleans, and Germany--so, I tend to differ with you. To make a living at art is hard enough--but to have been recognized by collegiate journals for work that was not done in the classroom as both current and original is for an artist very rare. I have never had to advertise, and I didn't think that my article was a promotional ad.

Perhaps it is vanity and perhaps it isnt. There is a create a page feature here; it's understandable why people would use it. To say that I'm not well known enough as the criteria your using would make sense, except as you well know there are numerous pages on wikipedia that do not meet such criteria, and there is no bandwagon to delete their work. I have visited the pages for deletion list also.

I thought the purpose of an encyclopedia was information; I didn't realize that it was a popularity contest. Censorship. True descriptions of fact and of a biographical nature is valid, if there is something noteworthy about the person. If you are saying that I am not noteworthy because you have never heard of me, that is a personal trivial excuse. The real reason that you do not want my page on here, is that I did not ask your permission. I do not need your support to be a successful artist, nor do I need your acceptance of the merits of my art. I have had plenty of blessings so far as an artist, and your personal opinion is just that--your personal opinion.

Needless to point out that there are the equivalent of 3-5 pages on Osama Bin Laden and Abu Musab Al-Zarquawi. I suppose they deserve a page and I don't. But then, theyre famous and that's what matters. They don't have my talent, nor half of the talent that most of the people you would nominate for deletion.

Since you have never heard of me, think of all the other remote and equally valid subjects that populate wiki. Tell me, where is the criteria posted that explains when I am good enough in your eyes to have half a page?


 * Not that it matters at this point, but let me introduce you to Importance. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I suppose if I had murdered a celebrity, or flew airplanes into buildings--then you would want to shaare my bio with wiki's patrons. I believe you are just an editor, and little more. If you can't find imperfection in someone else, you can't be happy, nor do your job. People as talented and successful as myself must make your job hard, because we have no need for an editor.

I can see why you reacted to me in the way which you did. Marcus Aurelius would have told you that you project your negative view on your private failures onto others, because it is your nature. In other words, you can't help being such a obtuse person. Enjoy your picture of yourself that I'm sure is hanging next to your Framed Certificates. People like you take things too seriously--except when it does not involve promoting you.

You create what exactly?

Oh that's right. You promote the well-known and censor the obscure, all according to your judgement. What a gift God has given you.

But I'm sure that in your case, he would not take the credit.


 * Additionally, I nominate this AfD for BJAODN. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Here is what the page says. "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field"

Now, what divides my current status from this description? I am a painter a professional my work has been recognized as exceptional by diverse sources

now, it is up to others whether my work will become an enduring part of the field. All you did was simply look to the number of hits on google as an authority on fine art. Since I have created over 500 oils, 2000 drawings and sold almost all of them, been asked to paint murals in signifigant sites, and have sold oils to prominent personalities--who are you to say whether or not my work will be remembered in the historical record? I have already secured my place. I didnt know I had to be a superstar on TV and the internet too.

Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Fortune Teller....????

This correspondence may be worth something someday. Would you like my autograph, Jeffrey?


 * Delete Unverifyable. Unfortunate, but if there's no attainable reference that Mr. Wood's work is exeptional by acclaimed experts it is hard to believe he has any merits/value to art history or the current stream he falls in. I tried the St. Lious Post ditchpatch and the North County suburban Journal site's (both of them seem to have the same online reference) but unfortunatly I couldn't get anything from it. L3TUC3 14:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. I also did a fair bit of searching and couldn't find any external verification of notability, although I did find a fair bit on another painter named Joseph Wood. That's not to say his art doesn't have merit, but Wikipedia's about other people recognizing him, not about the art itself. --William Pietri 02:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 18:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, vanity, nn, unverifiable. MCB 09:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 21:59, 6 November 2005 (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.