Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LG Williams


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 05:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

LG Williams

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I have deleted much from this article that simply cannot be supported by WP:RS. I understand that this is a performance artist who is using Wikipedia, and this article in particular, as part of his performance art. Obviously, this is completely unacceptable, as per WP:HOAX. I've been unable to unearth any persuasive evidence that he is a notable artist. Several hoax articles pop up, such as this false news story. There have been problems with notability and deletion before, as noted here. At least three accounts that have been trying to promote him have been blocked. It looks like a real mess. This article and variations such as "L. G. Williams" should probably be salted. I also hope that Williams won't come to this AfD and attempt to turn it into a "performance piece" circus. Qworty (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Has the above become some art critic of the imaginary? I do not see "performance artist" in the acclaimed artist's description? Where is the 'hoax' in all the citations that were deleted?  I will undo so that people can make there own decision.--ArtFartAttack (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In addition, how can one review an article when all the verifiable and well-sourced information has been deleted? The artist was in the 2010 Venice Biennial -- considered one of the most important exhibition on Planet Earth! :::--ArtFartAttack (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * On schedule, we have the appearance of a new sock. The new account should be blocked, and this article should be deleted and salted. Qworty (talk) 04:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I don't know enough about his notability as an artist, but he does seem to exist and given that the socks promoting him on Wikipedia live in the same area, he is probably not an imaginary person. His notability as WP:PROF seems rather marginal though. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics-related deletion discussions. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. How can any wiki visual arts editor review art literature, articles, and primary / verifiable sources (2012 Venice Biennial, Artforum, La Stampa, HuffingtonPost.fr, San Francisco Chronicle, Village Voice, et al), about 100 actually, when they have all been deleted BEFORE posting this 'discussion' by a verifiably rouge editor []? Next, how can one read a comment by a 'neutral' (ie, rogue) editor who (i) claims to have no visual art knowledge whatsoever but then (ii) proposes to delete a Visual Art / Artist article via WP:PROF? Clearly all of these actions are suspicious. I look forward to reading learned editorial commentary. Jusanotherwikidope (Talk) 17:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence the subject meets WP:GNG. To meet WP:GNG we need significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. Provide some and it might be a different story. Everything so far is either WP:ILIKEIT or pure, unverified WP:OR. Agree he exists but Existence ≠ Notability. Stalwart 111  (talk) 07:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Obviously, ArtFartAttack and Jusanotherwikidope are new socks of the three blocked accounts I referenced in the AfD nomination. Qworty (talk) 08:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * SPI now available here for these new accounts. Qworty (talk) 11:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. LG Williams as a person exists. He is even an artist but clearly of no major importance. If you check his cv on his web site you will notice that much of his web presence is used for his performances. His statement, for example, that he was invited to the Biennale in Venice is of course not backed by any official statement from the organizers. You will also notice in his cv that he claims to hold a Ph.D. "honoris caustica" from an academic institution that I have never heard of, clearly a hoax and part of his performance. The same is true for the claim that he holds an endowed chair at a non existing university in Hawaii. I could continue this list of untrue statements but I hope that the examples I have shown demonstrate the claim that LG Williams is a performance artist who clearly misuses Wikipedia for his (commercial) purposes. I would like to add that a previous article in Wikipedia about him had been deleted because of similar accusations and that the current article is his second attempt. LG Williams seems to receive help promoting himself from a visiting assistant professor in the art history program at Arizona State University, who might be his girl friend and writes about him for example in the Huffington Post. In order to keep Wikipedia a respected source of information entries like this have to be removed. So far the quality control system seems to work but self promotion and self performance seems to become a real threat for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.249.117.156 (talk • contribs)
 * Maybe we should give him a caustic reception then. Where is his CV anyway? It's not on the ASU site, and the private (.com) one is probably part of his performance, as you say. In any case, please stop adding unreferenced derogatory material to this article, see WP:BLP. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Tao Lin redux, minus the notability (i.e., using Wikipedia as a promotional tool as opposed to reporting on an already notable topic). OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete!!! Since you mentioned LG Williams girlfriend (see above anon comments with zero objections), I would like to say for the record that I am one of many "girlfriends": we taught (read WP: PROF) together at UCB, USC and CCA. I "did it" with him in many classrooms when the students/administration/janitors were busy elsewhere.  For the record, Williams (by his own admission, just ask him) is a super-sex-fiend and he will have relations with anything that has walked on this planet for more than 19 years.  He has no limits. His poetry is vulgar and crude and is sold at the best bookstore in the USA: City Lights bookstore. I have seen him go all night at the Power Exchange in San Francisco without a glass of water. (By the way, it is true that he has filthy 7.5" white member.) In addition, he regularly shoots bibles with shotguns at his RV compound in Utah and he regularly prays to Satan's granny for less libido (See his YouTube videos).  However, I must say, he would never be so stupid as to not find a CV on a webpage like the "editor" above: here is the CV link Einstein: only a Wikipedian could be so blind; nor would he give his opinion on matters he knows absolutely nothing about, like the other thread "editors" above (see their own disqualifications above / and contributions pages). True, Williams is an art/sex monster of the lowest calibre but this is a ghastly tribunal strung together by mediocrities []. Rid him of this hypocrisy! Speedy deletion!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.169.104.254 (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't find any reason that this article meets WP:GNG- no notable coverage to support the inclusion of an article. Ducknish (talk) 01:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete? Ducknish, all the notable material has already been deleted. Excellent work. Performance art is despicable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.83.194 (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete — Fails WP:GNG and everything else. Objectively, it could be WP:TOOSOON, and notability might not be far off. It's unhelpful that he'd pick this venue, though. JFHJr (㊟) 02:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Ok, his ASU CV is also full of performance art, containing for example:

EDUCATION ت�ب�ر�ی�س�ا�ی�ا�چ�ط�و�ر�ط�ر�ا�ح�ی�غ�ل�ط�غ� •, Institute for Subversive Art and Analysis, Cedar Rapids, IA, Ph.D., Docteur Honaris Caustica • University of California, Davis, M.F.A. • Kansas City Art Institute, Kansas City, MO, B.A.

It's not possible to base a Wikipedia article on sources that mix fact with fiction so freely. Come back with non-selfpublished WP:RS Tijfo098 (talk) 07:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. For those with highbeam access, the artforum article used as one of the two references in the current version of our article can be found here. It covers Williams' works in nontrivial detail, so I'd say it goes some way towards notability (though we'd need more than one such source to pass WP:GNG) but it barely says anything about Williams as a person so it doesn't really address the verifiability concerns that have come up in this AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That artforum article is written by Julia Friedman  who is some sort of ASU museum curator and visiting assistant prof. She is also the author of the Huffington Post France piece  also promoting Williams; that blog entry has caused a BLP bruhaha on ANI after it was quickly added to other articles by Art4em sockpuppets because it made some disparaging remarks about another (more famous) artist. It's not clear if artforum has some editorial oversight, but the Huffington Post fr blog surely looks like it doesn't. Some editors on the other side of the sockpuppeting war have alleged that Friedman (besides working for the same institution as Williams) has an intimate relationship with Williams, making her pieces even less neutral. Even if that is bollocks, we want sources less connected with Williams' workplace for GNG purposes. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like Artforum articles in general are considered reliable sources, so they do contribute to the notability of an artist. (As with all art criticism, opinions published there should be attributed to their authors though.) But insofar Friedman is the only source of substantial coverage for Williams, it seems. We need more for GNG given that independence is not so clear cut in this case. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I was able to find the "L.G. WILLIAMS AT WIRTZ" 1999 piece. It's at the bottom of this page (which is mostly about Mike Henderson--a painter for which we do not have an article--, although that combination may be an artifact of how the newspaper was digitized.) Tijfo098 (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. They also have a Scribd account |%20PCP%20Press%20|%20%20The%20Estate%20Of%20LG%20Williams which may or may not contain any useful press clips; most seem fabricated. The account makes a typically boisterous & bogus claim "LG WILLIAMS is the Emma Hennings Distinguished Professor of Visual Art and Art History at D(D).DDDD University in Honolulu, Hawaii." Related hoaxes/promotional web stunts include 2005prixmarcelduchamp.com and ddddddu.com Tijfo098 (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I think that the 1999 and 2011 coverage show enough notoriety to warrant a stub. It would probably need to be permanently semi-protected from sockpuppetry. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it makes an interesting chalenge for Wikipedia to check out if a so-called "long artist career" can be totaly fabricated just with web referencies. Jean-no (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * He list news coverage of him in a rather strange manner on his website. http://lgwilliams.com/?page_id=1962 I went to one of those places, it being http://mywebtimes.com/archives/ottawa/display.php?id=435755, which allows anyone to submit their own news. A lot of the other things appear to be websites of a similar nature. The article is all referenced to a free magazine, or the website for them anyway, Tokyo weekender.   D r e a m Focus  18:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The San Francisco Chronicle does give him a few paragraphs. Artforum did in fact review him in one issue.  So he has gotten coverage in reliable sources.   D r e a m Focus  18:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete smells like WP:HOAX to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you believe major publications were fooled? Or that when they reviewed art that he had on display somewhere, they just imagined it, or were in on this "hoax"?   D r e a m Focus  16:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I for one believe he's fooled many. And many more have picked up a real story based on a hoax, fake story from the horse's mouth, or fake listing and reproduce it. JFHJr (㊟) 06:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - San Francisco Chronicle July 17, 1999, Artforum May 1, 2011, and Artforum October 6, 2011 provide enough reliable source information to meet WP:GNG. It doesn't help that the editors of the Wikipedia article chose to use sources not independent of the topic. The Tokyo Weekender Magazine sources in the Wikipedia article are written by LG Williams, so they are not independent of the topic and do not count towards WP:GNG. The Village Voice source in the Wikipedia article is a letter to the editor from LG Williams, so it is not independent of the topic and does not count towards WP:GNG. Some other source material: San Francisco Chronicle July 17, 1999 (write up on work of L.G. Williams), Honolulu Advertiser, June 29, 2004 (letter to the editor, not independent); Western Mail December 9, 2005 (letter to the editor, might not be from above LG Williams, not independent); Artforum May 1, 2011 (significant coverage #1), Friedman, Julia. LG Williams/Estate of LG Williams: Super Window Project, Artforum (October 6, 2011) (3 sentence coverage, couldn't get URL from http://artforum.com/search); Resume at ASU (not independent). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S., The San Francisco Chronicle July 17, 1999 article is odd in that 12 years pass from then until the Artforum October 6, 2011 article. You would expect that there would be more reliable source coverage between that time span. The ASU resume doesn't help explain this. A more detailed resume is here and perhaps the clever Fuck That Gallery might explain the lack of gallery, and thus, reliable source interest. From the resume, Williams may have graduated from Davis in 1986. The resume is from the website web59.asu.edu, but I could not find any information about the website from network solutions. The resume sites notes "Your profile? You control what’s displayed" so none of the information in the Wikipedia article should be sourced to the web59.asu resume. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Mystery solved. He used to go by L.G. Williams and L. G. Williams, which might not be found in searching for LG Williams. There's more information on L. G. Williams:; In October 1992, while an instructor in John F. Kennedy University's graduate arts and consciousness program, Williams was awarded the California State Award of Excellence in Art for "Ranging Succubi," a charcoal drawing by Williams. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Regarding "this is a performance artist who is using Wikipedia, and this article in particular, as part of his performance art" noted in the AfD nomination, where are the diffs to support this BLP issue claim that it is Williams himself causing the issues within Wikipedia? The reliable source information I found backs up claims in his resume that his art medium is tangible rather than the purported performance art. Instead I'm seeing attacks against Mr. Williams through Wikipedia, which needs to stop. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: A few paragraphs in a newspaper isn't significant enough coverage p  b  p  18:47, 1 October 2012 (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.