Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Lord


 * 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, per nominator's request. Materialscientist (talk) 05:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Josh Lord

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Withdrawn by nominator  Flat Out  let's discuss it  05:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Fails WP:NARTIST and doesn't have secondary sources to support WP:GNG

WP:NARTIST requires: 1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. 3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. 4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. I have removed sources about other artists and have deleted unsourced content but the article creator has reinstated the content without discussion.

The subject of the article doesn't meet 1, 2, 3, or 4. and with most sources being notes on small exhibitions. The article lacks significant reviews and/or interviews and there is nothing of note written by an independent source.  Flat Out  let's discuss it  08:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Flat Out, I am not ignoring the so called concerns of ‘other’ editors, namely yourself; I was appalled and insulted by your brutal handling of my article. As a first time contributor you have turned my efforts into an unpleasant experience. When I began writing the article I received nothing but good advice, constructive criticism and encouraging words from all the other reviewers/editors that provided feedback, even if it was declined twice, they motivated me enough to keep going and provided instructions that helped me to build a better article. I received comments like “you are heading in the right direction..” or “I don’t want to decline the article because with some adjustment it could be accepted”. Other reviewers/editors helped me with the technical issues on how to link properly and provide citations and how to format correctly.

I sought advice from the Teahouse and received constructive feedback again. I worked on my article laboriously to ensure I followed Wiki guidelines and rules. All the work paid off as it was then accepted on 1 March as a ‘Start Class’ article. I am well aware that it is just a start and believe that many articles commence very basically, but given the chance I could build it to become a very well constructed Wikipedia.

Then you came along ‘Flat Out’ and stripped my article down, no explanation, not offering advice or suggestions on how it could be fixed, just deleting 3 quarters of it, leaving a meaningless skeleton. Your methods were brutal and insulting. I don’t believe you are following correct protocols in how to handle new contributors, are you supposed to scare people away, put them off enough so they don’t continue their efforts to contribute or become new editors or Wikipedia authors? To quote wiki guidelines when thinking about deleting an article “The fact that you haven’t heard of something, or don’t personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion.”

I am in fact a writer and since January 2014 have published 64 out of 65 reviews on Theatre / Music / Travel and Events). After your first edit of my work I continued to work hard to ensure that my article was notable and reliable. I have been researching the artist for about 8 months now and have a lot of material and resources, but I have been careful as to how I add them to Wiki, wanting to stick to the rules.

I changed the article and I deleted paragraphs that were truthful; yes he does combine live music with art exhibitions a lot and it’s a great mutual support of local artists, both musicians and painters a like, but I had less reliable sources for these sections and the list of 44 exhibitions the artist has participated in, I pulled that down, although these were accepted initially. I understand that many galleries have closed and it is hard to find references that are reliable when they are no longer in operation.

I was happy with my amendments then out of nowhere, no explanation, no feedback you tore my article to bits AGAIN – from 16 reliable references you stripped it down to 6 references and 10 lines of writing, despicable handling of a person’s hard work. Bully tactics again. You are not even credible in your amendments as the first time you damaged my article you left paragraphs and references in there, saying that they were the only reliable sources. The second hacking of my work you removed those very paragraphs you left there in the first place. How can I not think you are just attacking it for the sake of it without any logic or reason. Not only are you undermining me, but you undermine the judgement of your fellow editors, whom found the article worthy of start class. You are condescending to me and to them, it seems very much like power play to me, you seem to only be exercising your authority for the sake of it. As for your concern about my relationship with Lord where you have quoted “I also wonder what your relationship to Lord is seeing as he is not a notable artist in Australia”. As a start I don’t know Josh Lord personally, but I keep myself totally informed and up to date with all matters pertaining to art in Melbourne and Australia, and I am particularly interested in the artists that take the next step and attempt to seek work abroad. I regularly attend gallery openings and have a great understanding of what local artists are doing.

As you insult the artist once again by saying 'he is not a notable artist in Australia' – he is in fact notable in Australia and in many parts of the world. The artist does in fact meet the WP:NARTIST criteria. 1.	The person is regarded as an important figure or widely cited by peers and successors. YES

2.	The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. YES

3.	He is not the subject of an independent book or feature length film NO (Neither are many visual artists that I know of).

4.	The person’s work (or works) (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition YES, 44 exhibitions in fact, Australia and worldwide. (c) Has won critical attention YES.

I proved all the above by referencing quotes from the Wall Gallery owner – by displaying that he has partaken in worldwide exhibitions and galleries, by showing that a huge volume of his works have been sold by world premier auction houses and by showing that his work was featured as part of the Design Files magazine, this is notable.

This is why I reinstated the content that you deleted of my work, I believe your action was unjustifiable and somehow vindictive, a personal attack, on me, on the artist and on the judgement of your peers.

You continue to insult by saying that “most sources are notes on small exhibitions”. Is that right? SMALL? At Lords latest solo exhibition at D11 in 2014 80% of his work was sold. The opening was jam packed with attendees and the red dots were going up by the minute. Not small at all. An artist is lucky to sell 1 or 2 pieces of work at a solo show. Exhibiting in galleries in Amsterdam and the USA is not small either – In fact if you read any of my writing and clicked on any of the links you would have understood that Walls Gallery was an exhibition of 19 artists from all over the world, not small at all. Remember the quote I referenced - Wall's Gallery wrote, "With ' Thrill & Suspense ' Walls Gallery presents its new exhibition of works by 19 young and talented artists. Hereby I like to give special attention to Stephen Elledge (USA), Rolina Nell (NL) and Josh Lord (AUS). These three artists have made their mark abroad and are now shown for the first time in Amsterdam, and that in Walls Gallery." Let me also say that in my continued research of the artist I have learnt early on that he won two Octavian Art grants – 1 in 2000 to exhibit in UK and Berlin, the other in 1997 to exhibit in the US. Finding reliable sources for these has been hard, that’s why they are not in the article. Also missing from the article is the fact that Lord has completed 6 public commissions; 3 in Melbourne and two in 1997 – The Master Vision in New York and the International House in New York, another at Ronald McDonald House in Hong Kong. I am just trying to source reliable material for these.

So I have just about given up hope and I know that the article will be deleted. I started this project very enthusiastic, wanting to become a wiki author and put my own experience and writing into good use, very ready to contribute to Wiki. I believe they are seeking more female contributors and I am female. But thanks to you I have now been discouraged and deflated. Due to your approach I have no desire to attempt anymore wiki articles, I will use other avenues to write about art. So thank you for your feedback. How Wikipedia allows you to treat new (and existing) contributors like this is beyond my understanding. You are a poor promotion for what wiki stands for.

WriteaboutArt (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2015 (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.