Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly D. Williams (2nd nomination)


 * 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 per clear consensus.  Ty  00:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Kelly D. Williams
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Mere flimflam. Let's take a look:

the fact that Williams has been geographically disconnected from the lowbrow, outsider, and street art scene at large for most of his career has given him a unique view of what it means to be a venerated artist in this particular genre of art -- from which we are perhaps to infer that Williams is venerated in a particular genre of art. Strong stuff! But unfortunately we're not told the genre, let alone who's doing the venerating.

Williams' raw form of art has been exhibited in various galleries in New York City, Salt Lake City, Austin, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Japan, Israel, Paris and the United Kingdom. -- a "source" that says no such thing.

His work has also been featured in several international publications. -- a "source" that says no such thing.

Kelly D. Williams currently continues to work as a graphic designer and gallery artist -- very likely a self-penned "source". (The site's "welcome" page tells artists: Get your own portfolio with images of artwork; publish exhibition openings, reviews, press releases. (example) Self-service and Free. Start here)

as well as writing for a variety of magazines. -- The content of the linked page has been deleted, but anyway this external link is also presented as seventh among the list of "references" to this WP article, where it's described as "Music editorial written by Kelly D. Williams", so it would appear to have been self-penned.

No consensus to keep or delete an article on Williams back in January 2007, since which time it has become no more convincing. (Indeed, it has just sprouted a claim that Williams is or was also a photographer, a claim that attracted my attention and for which no evidence is forthcoming.) The article has been living on borrowed time; enough's enough. Hoary (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC) ......Minor revision for the sake of clarity (no substantive change): Hoary 20:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  —Hoary (talk) 04:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  —Hoary (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.   —Hoary (talk) 04:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. X MarX the Spot (talk) 06:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I see no WP:RS there. Jclemens (talk) 06:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per the detailed nom. --Crusio (talk) 10:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per very detailed nom. Note also both UK "exhibitions" listed on his website are online virtual shows, in the case of the Saatchi open to anyone to add their own work. I doubt if the last Afd would have survived a Review. Johnbod (talk) 11:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom., see my comments at last Afd. --Bejnar (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, consider to article to be placed as stub Keep article pending volunteer to include fact-based information on artist per original Afd indecision, i vote that this article remains and is improved by removing insufficient links and adding more substantial information. Eng500 (talk) 07:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In your edit summary for this edit, made well over a year ago, you seemed to suggest that you were going to add sourcing, etc. You have always been, and remain, welcome to add this. You're welcome to improve the article as much as you like, starting as soon as you wish. -- Hoary (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Eng500, perhaps you forgot, but this is your second "Keep" !vote. I guess you really feel strong about this then... :-) --Crusio (talk) 06:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually it's his/her first keep vote. Eng500 stuck it above all other votes. I moved it down here and responded to it. Then Eng500 stuck a second keep vote above all other votes. I can't blame you for thinking that it was first but actually it was second and I am now moving it to its proper place, immediately below this. -- Hoary (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the duplicate keep. Was uncertain of proper format to add responses. My only interest in keeping the article is that it is either improved and corrected with proper references, or removed to that someone else can more properly create the article.Eng500 (talk) 9:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Re: Keep noted, I have removed superfluous statements and irrelevant links. In addition to this, I move that once (or if) the Afd Notice is removed, we place a Wiki Stub Notice to help request additional parties to enhance this post.Eng500 (talk) 08:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As noted by Crusio, a duplicate vote. You can stick such a notice on the article at any time, e.g. right now. You mustn't remove the AfD notice from it, but otherwise you can do anything you want with it (as long as this doesn't break any rule that also applies to articles not at AfD). -- Hoary (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, the links mustn't merely be "relevant"; they must say what it's implied that they say; and assertions must be backed up with evidence. After your recent edit, the article now consists of four sentences. The first isn't sourced (and probably doesn't need to be, IFF its content is backed up in subsequent sentences). Here are the second, third and fourth sentences (in pink), with my comments (in darker pink): Williams' raw form of art has been exhibited in various galleries in New York City, Salt Lake City, Austin, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Japan, Israel, Paris and the United Kingdom. The external link at the end of that makes no such assertion, and no evidence is presented for exhibition in these places. His work has also been featured in several international publications. The external link at the end of that makes no such assertion, and no evidence is presented for being featured in international publications. Kelly D. Williams currently continues to work as a graphic designer and gallery artist Yes, the juxtapoz.com page that's linked to shows photos of one exhibition. as well as writing for a variety of magazines. The external link at the end of that says nothing whatever, and no evidence is presented that he writes for a variety of magazines. So: four links, of which three are duds; no significant change to the value of this article since it was nominated. -- Hoary (talk) 11:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hoary, thanks for the detailed description. I went in and removed the broken links (I only noticed 1 of the 4 that were errors), and added the wiki stub artist category. That is about the extent of the improvements that I will be able to do for now, but others are welcome to correct my edits to align with policy or add further data. Thanks.Eng500 (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Eng500, are you serious? The link to gimmeshelter.co.uk does not prove Williams "exhibited in various galleries in New York City, Salt Lake City, Austin, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Japan, Israel"--it proves (with a lot of coaxing and browsing) that he painted pieces of cardboard for a show that might take place if someone donates gallery space! Drmies (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Drmies, please avoid using personal emotion or taste in this exchange. Williams is an artist that I am somewhat familiar with while writing a paper on him for a college class. Although only known in his specific genre, he is a notable artist and designer. This is my reason for trying to improve the weak article. Again, If the actual nominator feels it best to delete, than that is fine by me. But please (like all other articles) give this the sincere study beyond your immediate findings. It requires more than a few clicks of the mouse to gain the full picture of an artists notability and/or influence. I will also revert the changes to the art show references, as this artist has obviously participate in more than these 2 exhibits. Regardless, it serves no purpose to list such shows.Eng500 (talk) 12:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no new material to add, though there's been an edit or two to bring the wording more in line with reality. Two external links were removed--they were already in the 'references', and thus seemed to be resume-padding. Now, if the new reality (a three-week show in a gallery in SLC, two years ago, and a one-night stand in Long Beach this summer) suggests there isn't really much notability, soit. Drmies (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No notability yet, though I wish him the best of luck. Drmies (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Update on sourcing for the exhibition venues (now that this has again been reworked). Curiously, Long Beach isn't listed, but there is evidence of a solo exhibition there. The only place listed with evidence is Israel; follow that link and you'll see that Williams is one of over sixty people exhibited there. Uh, is there no more evidence for exhibitions? -- Hoary (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete maybe in a few years....Modernist (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:39, 1 October 2008 (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.