Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LG Williams (3rd 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. Spartaz Humbug! 09:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

LG Williams
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The LG Williams article was created by a user who has engaged in sock puppetry, attempted to make the artist appear to be more notable than he is, and a very likely conflict of interest scenario. One of the ways has been to use letters to the editor and blog postings as sources for content. Based upon google news, google books, HighBeam Research, and Questia searches, it's very difficult to find sources for the subject, except for his own essentially self-published books (PCP Press). The article was created several years ago (2012) and deleted due to notability issues. Since then, I read that the artist worked as a realtor in Hawaii for at least two years.

The article was deleted in 2006 as part of the PROD process and in 2012 per discussion at Articles for deletion/LG Williams and earlier this year at Articles for deletion/LG Williams (2nd nomination)-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 02:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk to me  03:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk to me  03:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Too few quality reliable sources to make a solid case for keeping, but perhaps just enough, together with the numerous lightweight sources, to pass. Ewulp (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - almost on the basis of process alone. This should have gone to WP:DRV where changes since the last AFDs could be considered by the community and approval given (or not) for the recreation of this article. Instead, serial sock-puppeteers simply recreated it (twice) and have filled it with ref-spam in an attempt to make it look legit. But many are older than 2 years and would have been available during the last discussions. The article would seem to suffer from the same problems that it did in the past. The community supported (in my view) salting the first time around but that wasn't done (for whatever reason). The sources provided are much the same as last time - self-promotional nonsense from a full-time-real-estate-agent / part-time-artist. They are headlines in the same way that the guys from Jackass get headlines for stapling their anatomy to things. Yeah, it's "coverage" but seriously... read the actual articles... they're all about how he did something, it won't work, but it was a bit funny, what was his name again?  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 06:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, though I agree it was a fairly detestable article created for the wrong purpose (though now significantly improved by a couple of experienced editors). I don't see much new relaible coverage since the 2012 deletion at AfD, but if I had participated in 2012 I would have probably said 'weak keep' too, based on the small number of in-depth reliable news articles. His 1999 exhibitions in California attracted attention  and he has exhibited internationally, receiving significant attention in Bahrain and Japan. The long list of 'Further reading' doesn't fool me, I'm afraid, I fully expect it to be brief mentions or no mentions at all (based on the tactics in the rest of the article). Sionk (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the artBahrain piece isn't about an international exhibit in Bahrain, it's just overseas coverage of his let's-pretend-to-sell-off-public-property-for-a-lark stunt. Its exactly the coverage I was referring to above. We can't seriously consider that "significant coverage" of the artist can we? It doesn't tell us much of anything about him.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 22:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: LG Williams work is insignificant. None of his pieces are in a public collection. The little he made hasn't been presented in a notable venue, nor included in a notable exhibition. There is nothing about him in national libraries. --Newnewbi (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete: I could not agree more with the insightful -- despite his or her sole purpose -- editor: Williams is detestable. Forget all what you read -- its all pretend and fake like the excellent editor said. Williams is clearly a PT Barnum. He has tricked EVERYONE on Wikipedia into thinking he is notable when he is not notable. I am so happy with the "excellent editors" who deleted all of his fake real exhibitions and fake verifiable publications. Thank you excellent editors for catching this WP:Hoax! Small wonder everyone hates Williams like Claude Clousky and all the 'Forever Professors'! The last letter to the editor is unimaginable -- what hutzpah! In addition, I think his artistic treatment of men and women art curators is contemptible:
 * For example, the letter to the editor (mentioned specifically above by the excellent women's art editor) treats men curators with contempt: Williams wrote (and the Village Voice editors vetted, sanctioned and  then published this egregious criticism of as remarkable curator -- how horrible!), "Lawrence Rinder is a "lousy," "tepid," and "irresponsible" curator" -- Larry curated a Whitney Biennial, so how could Williams say that? AND The Village Voice editors publish it? It doesn't make any sense1?!  What artistic insolence! Who does Williams think he is?
 * But, Williams treats woman curators even more grotesquely: See esp. UACAWSACCADB: Up-And-Coming Artist Who Stares At Curators, Collectors, and Dealers Boobs. Horrible!
 * PS: Claude Clousky is #1! Do not believe what Le Huffington Post wrote about him! --Chan12345 (talk) 03:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Mind you, you must admit he's having the desired impact if people (or person) are outraged enough to create Wikipedia accounts to berate him. Artists have used shock tactics for many many decades, to attract attention or as part of their art practise. We're not here to judge whether his tactics are pleasant or ethical, but whether they have indeed attracted wider attention. Sionk (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sionk, I suspect that's a (very) strong supporter of the artist, dripping with sarcasm. Childish sarcasm always seems to get lost in discussions like these.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 21:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't take it that way at all. It's pretty clear that the artist has done unusual things for attention - which by its nature is going to find supporters and make others uncomfortable or mad (no value judgment here). That's not really the point of this discussion - it is whether the artist is notable. That's what I got from Sionk's discussion.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * 2U CaroleHenson & 2U Sionk: Super ★ editor Stalwart111 just understand, prob will never understasnd. This is about fakery and Williams' is all about art fakery. Luckily for us 3 this LG Williams article doesn't representz WP:NPV this is about WP:Notability. And we know you can't prove WP:Notability with an asrticle with all the notasbility deleted cuz we know what is notability. Like the editor said in the talk page: "I don't like LG Williams art criticism, so I just deleted it all." Thast is the Wiki-editorial spirit if ever there was one for this LG Williams page! The question is notability and we can't have thast on this pagee with a person and publishers who denigrate today's american curators likee Williams' letter to the editor. Even though per WP:NPV, the nationally ranked publicastion which was 100% notable and verifiable and vetted by the Village Voice editors -- knew Williams would treat men curators with contempt:  Williams wrote and I repeat (and the Village Voice editors vetted, sanctioned and  then published this egregious criticism of as remarkable curator -- how horrible!), "Lawrence Rinder is a "lousy," "tepid," and "irresponsible" curator" -- Laarry curated an amazing Whitney Biennial, so how could Williams say that? AND The Village Voice editorss published it too? Prob the Village Voice editors believed in WP:NPV? That is just not right. It doesn't make any sense!?! Why would any editor be WP:NPV? What artistic insolence! Who does Williams think he is? I am so glad that this excellent editor of the LG Williams article cites this (Letter To The Editor) again and again as an great example of her editing skills and an example of another Williams hoax and disrespect of america's premiere american curators -- even though (to repeat) it was vetted, sanctioned and  then published in the  Village Voice by their legendary editorial team. I am so glad this is NOT in the article for people to read. If it were in the article the article would be WP:NPV an we cannot have that with PT Barnums like Williams. Cheers 2 U excellent editors...--Chan12345 (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Firm Delete: Reading this thread is inspiring. I can see why many of you are ★ excellent-editors. You cannot be fooled, ever. Actually, all of the editors present in this discussion are simply here to provide excellent learning opps in a good-faith setting, multi-cultural setting, like my church. I would be the first one to thank all of you. Only such editors could truly evaluate postmodern art by artists living southern california. The notably question raised here, again-and-again-is the question for this article, period, even though almost every notable citation and reference has been properly deleted from the article, by seasoned experienced excellent wiki art editors. Let me list what has been DELETED by the excellent editors, thank you:


 * UnNotable (and fake) Art Publishing Record:
 * Williams has published the companion book for one of the most important, canonical art texts in the western world Gardner's Art Through The Ages, entitled, Drawing Upon Art > ISBN-10:0495572365 | ISBN-13:9780495572367 . Of course this reference was deleted by the excellent editors.
 * He has published over 75 books all self-published. Why self published? West Coast artists like Wallace Berman and Wally Hedrick hated the corporate establishment. That is why Williams was included in the Rat Bastard Protective Association, in the first place. It is in the west coast art tradition to avoid corporate publishers at all cost. However, these self-published book were deleted from the record despite WP:SELF which states: "Self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves."
 * UnNotable (and fake) Scholarship Record: Dozens upon dozens of documents from publications across the globe:
 * San Francisco Chronicle
 * San Francisco Bay Guardian
 * La Stampa
 * Artforum
 * Art Papers
 * Of course, almost of these (and many many more) were deleted by excellent editors like this: "based on the poor quality (and I will deem if they are good or poor) of most of sources (I should know I deleted them myself) by WP:FRAUD Williams provided since the beginning, I am removing the items i.e., because I didn't have spare time to verify so I just delete"
 * UnNotable (and fake) Art Critic & Art Historical Testimonies:
 * Kenneth Baker
 * Donald Preziosi: I am thrilled to read that all of you excellent editors know Oxford Distinguished Professor Preziosi is working for LG Williams and an off-line sockpuppet. Why else would this distinguished art historian write about Williams? Williams' tricked Preziosi or paid Preziosi, obviously. See: Page 85-87 - and notice Williams is the only artwork in the entire book. And, I am so glad the excellent editor said, and I quote,"I didn't have time to read or check, so I just deleted". That is how WP:Hoaxes should be treated by editors in Wikipedia!
 * Glen Helfand
 * Thomas Frangenberg and dozens more.
 * UnNotable Solo Exhibition Record
 * 20 or 30? solo exhibitions and art-fairs across the Globe since 1985. Bless the excellent editor for deleting most of these WP:HOAXES. But I would like to point out that one editor (who knew little about contemporary art) was duped when he stated the following: Williams recent exhibitions look very legitimate, and his inclusion in a curated show in 2013 with the following is pretty impressive:
 * Abraham Cruzvillegas
 * Seth Price
 * Hans Op de Beeck
 * Maurizio Cattelan
 * Obviously, the excellent european curators we part of the hoax -- even if the exhibition was in Lithuania -- 4500 miles from Los Angeles where Williams lives the life of PT Barnum
 * UnNotable Group Exhibition Record
 * Tens of dozens of group exhibitions and art-fairs across the Globe since 1985. Bless the excellent editor for deleting most of these WP:HOAXES.
 * A Thirty-Year Record of UnNotable Exhibition (and fakery) in Art
 * His 25 year retrospective wasn't in the USA, it was held in Milan, Italy. American's know art; that is why is was in Italy. Americans know PT Barnum; that is why it was in Italy. And, Europeans don't know art, that is why the two biggest art venues are in Europe: Venice Biennial and Art Basel - Europeans don't know about Williams' WP:FRAUDS.
 * Tens of dozens of UnNotable WP:BLOGS posting and reviews that appeared on the web since 2000: Thank you Jesuz, Almost all of these hoaxes were DELETED from the present article too by excellent editors
 * ""Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Many art news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may are acceptable in Wikipedia as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control."
 * I am simply thrilled that one particular excellent editor was not fooled by Williams - they were nice enough to delete all the blog citations on her own good-faith excellent-editing / private-eye skills - despite WP:BLOGS
 * My Favorite Good-Faith Excellent-Editor Comment By Far:
 * Deleting veteran west coast art critic Glen Helfand critical observations because a certain excellent editors imagine the distinguished, long-time, veteran art critic (a) does not know he is saying and be (b) he doesn't know how to write: Williams ranks among "some of the most interesting contemporary artists, those who can address or find their way through the computer-assisted malady we call 'image overload'".


 * Thank you excellent wiki editors. Only good-faith will keep Wiki free from WP:Hoaksters like Williams -- Delete LG Williams asap! --Bald eagle babe (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: After User:xxxartxxx who created the LG Williams article was blocked as a sockpuppet of the blocked sockpuppet User:Art4em, he immediately returned to continue editing the article as User:Ratbastardassn and was blocked again. In this diff on the sockpuppeter Ratbastardassn's talk page he proposes adopting "Chan" as his next user ID, and now here's the new single-purpose editor Chan12345 arguing with evident sarcasm for deletion of the article ... followed by Bald eagle babe's sockdologer written—like Chan12345's posting—in the familiar style of Art4em/xxxartxxx. Although I indicated above (and on Talk:LG Williams) that I lean slightly towards a "keep", if the eventual outcome of this AfD is a decision to delete, I would second the proposal of Stalwart111 to WP:SALT the article, or this tiresome stunt will surely continue. Ewulp (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Salt: I could not agree more with the editors: upon my full and careful evaluation one can clearly see that A. Williams is a "detestable" artist, and B. as a result of all the "detestable" deletions from the "excellent editors" who did not follow WP:NPV, this article has become "a fairly detestable article". It should be deleted not because it is not notable, which by all standards clearly is established 10 years ago, but to prevent anyone senior wiki editor from seeing such detestable non-WP:NPV actions / edits from "excellent editors". See for example in Wiki, "Editors must present material with a neutral point of view (NPOV). All editors must adhere to NPOV. All articles must adhere to NPOV." This tiresome bias against LG Williams is irrational, and should not be visible.
 * See another clear biased editorial statement above: "Yeah, it's "coverage" but seriously..." Here we have clear admission of notability: "yeah, its coverage"; followed by a clear evidence of WP:NPV violations by the following statement "but seriously". This last comment is a clear violation of WP:NPV: Editors must present material with a neutral point of view (NPOV). All editors must adhere to NPOV. All articles must adhere to NPOV. In summary, these constant, non-WP:NPV actions should come to an end and be hidden away: SALT.
 * However tiresome this point may be, let me illustrate my point with the facts. Take a look at this list of notable sources. This list makes a complete mockery of many non-WP:NPV editor comments above, for example: "Too few quality reliable sources to make a solid case for keeping." On the other hand, said editor cannot learn notability because of another "excellent editor's" non WP:NPV and clear WP:BIAS actions, maintained deletions from the article to prevent any WP:Fair and educated reading. I don't blame her because Williams is a despicable artist, she (editorially) undertook despicable actions. Here is the citation list in full, which includes only the artist's notable citations, meaning this list does not include his own exhibition record, publishing record, and criticism record, etc:


 * 2013-14: Art, Religion and Amnesia: Routledge Press, Los Angeles I’m Yours.com, National Lithuanian Radio and Television, Lzinios.Lt: Kūrėjų Pastangos Laike Ir Erdvėje, Kulturpolis.Lt: New Shows at Klaipėdos Kultūrų Komunikacijų Centro (KCCC): Journey of the Self in The Contemporary Art World, ArtNews.lt, Kulturpolis.Lt: Klaipėdos Kultūrų Komunikacijų Centro (KCCC) Parodą Dienraštyje Reklamuos Menininko Karikatūros, WhoWoreItBetter.com, Los Angeles I’m Yours, Los Angeles I’m Yours, Night Gallery – Night Gallery Papers IV, Parc du Domaine les Crayères, Hyperallergic.com, GrandBag, Java Magazine
 * 2012: Art Tribune, Seeking People, Purple Diary, Art Text Pics, Glass Magazine, Yiaos, Gloria Maria Gallery / Super Window Project, Graza.It, Japan Times, TYO Magazine, Le Dernier des Blogs, Mousse Magazine 35, ArtInfo.fr, Le Huffington Post, Art-O-Rama, Exponaut.com, Metropolis Magazine (Tokyo), Grazia.it, ARCO Madrid 2012
 * 2011: La Stampa, Grazia.it, ArtInfo.com (International Edition), Japan Times, Tokyo Art Beat, Time Out Tokyo, ArtInAsia.com, Rhizome.org, Art Fag City, Le Huffington Post, FlashArtOnline.it, Graza.it, Artforum Magazine, Vernissage.TV, Kunst-Magazin.com, Tokyo Art Beat, Tokyo Weekender Magazine
 * 2010: Artforum, Yerba Buena Center For The Arts.com, Paintwork Blogspot.com, HuffingtonPost.com, PresentMagazine.com
 * 2009: Sacramento Bee
 * 2008: Maui Weekly
 * 2005: Los Angeles Times
 * 2004: Honolulu Advertiser
 * 2003: Yerba Buena Center for the Arts, San Francisco Bay Guardian, East Bay Express, San Francisco Bay Guardian, San Francisco Chronicle
 * 2002: San Francisco Weekly, East Bay Express, Village Voice, Rat Bastard Protective Association: LG Williams, Honolulu Advertiser, Honolulu Star Bulletin
 * 1999: Daily Californian, San Francisco Chronicle, Daily Californian, Artweek, Art Issues, East Bay Express, San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Bay Guardian
 * 1994: The Wall Street Journal, Peralta Community College Television, USU Statesman, Herald Journal, The Desert News
 * 1993: Artweek
 * 1992: San Francisco Chronicle, Modesto Bee, Focus, California State Exposition, Berkeley Voice, Sacramento Bee
 * 1991: Palo Alto Cultural Center, Peninsula Times Tribune, Palo Alto Weekly, San Jose Mercury News
 * 1990: Palo Alto Times
 * 1989: San Jose Mercury News
 * 1988: Davis Enterprise
 * 1987: San Francisco Chronicle, Sacramento Bee, Davis Enterprise


 * Again, I propose SALT to prevent any record of this clear violation of WP:NPV. --Luv my range rover (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Bald eagle babe: Chan12345: these issues have been discussed in the talk page.--Newnewbi (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have read all the comments in the so-called "Talk Page" concerning LG Williams and found the discussion miserable overall. What do I mean by miserable? Well, almost all of the discussion is in violation of one Wiki guideline or another: WP:Inappropriate, WP:FTN, WP:Bias, WP:NPV, WP:Blog, WP:SelfPublish, et al. Williams' WP:Notability is well-established and beyond WP:NPV reproach (See previous list / comment above).
 * The reason for my "DELETE" vote is this: at a later time, it will be clear to any experienced WP:NPV editor that this "Deletion Debate" and "Talk Page" will be viewed to be in violation of comprehensive editorial WP:Bias. Until such time, LG Williams should not continue to be open to abuse, harassment, and hostility. This is just the opposite of what Wikipedia stands for. See esp all of your commentary:
 * WP:FTN "the Japan Times reference we know is misinformed" -- Newnewbi (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:Inappropriate "pictures of faceless bikini-clad women" -- Newnewbi (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, this article should be deleted because of clear editorial bias and reposted with knowledgable WP:NPV editorial supervision --Luv my range rover (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Suspected continued sockpuppet (copied from above)
 * Comment: After User:xxxartxxx who created the LG Williams article was blocked as a sockpuppet of the blocked sockpuppet User:Art4em, he immediately returned to continue editing the article as User:Ratbastardassn and was blocked again. In this diff on the sockpuppeter Ratbastardassn's talk page he proposes adopting "Chan" as his next user ID, and now here's the new single-purpose editor Chan12345 arguing with evident sarcasm for deletion of the article ... followed by Bald eagle babe's sockdologer written—like Chan12345's posting—in the familiar style of Art4em/xxxartxxx. Although I indicated above (and on Talk:LG Williams) that I lean slightly towards a "keep", if the eventual outcome of this AfD is a decision to delete, I would second the proposal of Stalwart111 to WP:SALT the article, or this tiresome stunt will surely continue. Ewulp (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, it seems quite clear that the Xxxartxxx / Art4em / Ratbastardassn etc. sockpuppetry had continued. Input in this discussion from Luv my range rover, Bald eagle babe, and Chan12345 makes it very difficult to sort out the true votes.
 * I suggest collapsing at least the "rant" part of the discussions that are essentially duplications of earlier discussions on the article talk page, much of which was archived. I'm not sure of the process for managing suspected sockpuppets in AfD discussions. If there's something else I need to do, please let me know.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * @Drmies: may I ask you assistance to please try to stop rogue editor CaroleHenson from collapsing discussions again-and-again to hide her bias. Just like you did here:  01:43, 29 November 2014‎ Drmies (→‎This Talk Page: i see no reason for this collapsing). It is editors like this that the recent article in Slate.com is warning everyone against. --Luv my range rover (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to bring up the issues of reliable sources, reopen discussions about why content/sources were removed, and other concerns, the article talk page is the place to do it. This discussion should be focused on whether to keep or delete the article.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you no self respect? Meaning, did you or did you not write this contempt first? "…the "rant" part of the discussions" --CaroleHenson (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC) Do not collapse my commentary which proves bias for all to read. Your contempt WP:NPV and clear WP:Bias and ignorance on many topics, such as WP:Blog and WP:SelfPublish is typical of the type explored in this recent Slate.com article. ::*Without a clear view of WP:Notability which I have listed above as a list and not as a rant, how do you expect any fair-minded editors to see your bias, and thus weigh in intelligibly upon the discussion?
 * Again @Drmies: may I ask you assistance to please try to stop rogue editor CaroleHenson from collapsing discussions again-and-again to hide her bias. Just like you did here:'''  01:43, 29 November 2014‎ Drmies (→‎This Talk Page: i see no reason for this collapsing). --Luv my range rover (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)It is editors like this that the recent article in Slate.com is warning everyone against.
 * Fine, I left a reply on your talk page about the continued practice of adding lots of content that is off-target for the forum - and has already been much discussed on the now on the archived article talk page and talk page. You (see SPI)  have been asked by other users to please keep your comments on-point and succinct. It's not worth getting into an edit war over.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine indeed! I reject again your biased, condescending, and backhanded apology and charge of "off-target comments." But thank you for keeping the notable material VISIBLE. And, again, thank you for leaving your biases un-addressed and uncontested. Why did not not address them, because they are inexcusable. Again, I am addressing the charge or THE TARGET (whatever nonsense that is):
 * You have attempted (in the article) to make the artist appear to be less notable than he is, and this is very likely a WP:Bias and WP:NPV scenario
 * MID-CAREER CONTEMPORARY ARTIST's are not found in: google news, HighBeam Research, and Questia searches. Wake up: This is a 21st century artist!  And, moreover, where in Wikipedia does it say LG Williams must be in HighBeam Research for Christ's sake. Show me that?
 * There are, however, 50 or so books on your precious Google Books. And, per WP:SELFPUBLISH they can be listed. Please put them back in the article as a sign of good-faith and admission of your WP:Ignorance or WP:Bias!!! In fact redress all the WP:Biases leved against you so people can make an informed decision. Why will you not do that? Because of WP:Bias and WP:NPV.
 * There are 100 +/- notable sources which you have DELETED because of WP:Bias and WP:NPV: Art, Religion and Amnesia: Routledge Press, Los Angeles I’m Yours.com, National Lithuanian Radio and Television, Lzinios.Lt: Kūrėjų Pastangos Laike Ir Erdvėje, Kulturpolis.Lt: New Shows at Klaipėdos Kultūrų Komunikacijų Centro (KCCC): Journey of the Self in The Contemporary Art World, ArtNews.lt, Kulturpolis.Lt: Klaipėdos Kultūrų Komunikacijų Centro (KCCC) Parodą Dienraštyje Reklamuos Menininko Karikatūros, WhoWoreItBetter.com, Los Angeles I’m Yours, Los Angeles I’m Yours, Night Gallery – Night Gallery Papers IV, Parc du Domaine les Crayères, Hyperallergic.com, GrandBag, Java Magazine, Art Tribune, Seeking People, Purple Diary, Art Text Pics, Glass Magazine, Yiaos, Gloria Maria Gallery / Super Window Project, Graza.It, Japan Times, TYO Magazine, Le Dernier des Blogs, Mousse Magazine 35, ArtInfo.fr, Le Huffington Post, Art-O-Rama, Exponaut.com, Metropolis Magazine (Tokyo), Grazia.it, ARCO Madrid 2012, La Stampa, Grazia.it, ArtInfo.com (International Edition), Japan Times, Tokyo Art Beat, Time Out Tokyo, ArtInAsia.com, Rhizome.org, Art Fag City, Le Huffington Post, FlashArtOnline.it, Graza.it, Artforum Magazine, Vernissage.TV, Kunst-Magazin.com, Tokyo Art Beat, Tokyo Weekender Magazine, Artforum, Yerba Buena Center For The Arts.com, Paintwork Blogspot.com, HuffingtonPost.com, PresentMagazine.com, Sacramento Bee, Maui Weekly, Los Angeles Times, Honolulu Advertiser, Yerba Buena Center for the Arts, San Francisco Bay Guardian, East Bay Express, San Francisco Bay Guardian, San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Weekly, East Bay Express, Village Voice, Rat Bastard Protective Association: LG Williams, Honolulu Advertiser, Honolulu Star Bulletin, Daily Californian, San Francisco Chronicle, Daily Californian, Artweek, Art Issues, East Bay Express, San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Bay Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, Peralta Community College Television, USU Statesman, Herald Journal, The Desert News, Artweek, San Francisco Chronicle, Modesto Bee, Focus, California State Exposition, Berkeley Voice, Sacramento Bee, Palo Alto Cultural Center, Peninsula Times Tribune, Palo Alto Weekly, San Jose Mercury News, Palo Alto Times, San Jose Mercury News, Davis Enterprise, San Francisco Chronicle, Sacramento Bee, Davis Enterprise
 * Therefore it is NOT it's very difficult to find sources for the subject -- it is only hard to find in the LG Williams article because you deleted it by your own whim and WP:Bias! - which many of us have clearly demonstrated.
 * Put an end to your Bias and non-NPV and let's end this nonsense abuses that Slate.com recently profiled.--Luv my range rover (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * FWIW I raised a sockpuppet investigation Sockpuppet investigations/Art4em. Sionk (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 05:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Appears to be sufficient sources to satisfy WP:BIO, even if not a slam dunk. It looks like this and the first AfD have been attended by an unusual number of SPAs. Could anyone provide a brief 1-2 sentence summary of why this is controversial? Best I can figure is it contained a great deal of content insufficiently supported by reliable sources and some people object to that material being removed and/or the way it was removed? --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 23:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: I struck my weak keep vote and did not replace it with another. Without having enough time to really scrutinize the sourcing, given the concerns raised here and at the first AfD I don't feel comfortable weighing in with a !vote at this time. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 16:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Rhododendrites, it's "controversial" only because supporters of the subject have tried to use WP as a means to promote the subject. Rather than a neutral, well-sourced article (which I'm not entirely convinced can be done anyway), supporters (probably only one supporter with multiple accounts, judging from the SPI) have complained about the removal of ref-spam screaming "bias" and then coming here to argue (sarcastically) for deletion on the basis that the subject wouldn't want to be associated with an article that doesn't promote him anyway. It's all silly, self-aggrandising, overly-sensitive-artist-type nonsense. Your analysis is pretty close to accurate I'd say. The best source I could find described the person in question as a part-time-artist/part-time-real-estate-agent. Says it all really.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I enjoyed your reading your in-depth summary and analysis. And, I enjoy reading the philistine, uneducated, and biased, "Says it all really," comment. Forgive me excellent editor, may I ask you what does your comment mean precisely, given that anyone can see from the list of your last 500 contributions not one of them concern Contemporary Art In Los Angeles ? Basically, I would say, "that about says it all" - you have no idea what you are talking about, period. Although I find LG Williams' art despicable, the bias by wiki-editors is more absurdist, in the poor sense. I doubt you would know that Francis Bacon made his living as a gambler; Andy Warhol as a designer; Giorgio Morandi as a high school art teacher; Marcel Duchamp taught tennis. Or would you prefer, I go and take down Jesus, Buddha and Diogenes of Sinope - to name just a few - wiki articles because they were homeless and DIDN'T have a part-time realty job? Your comment is clear indication of your overall ignorance, ignorance of the subject specifically - moreover its absurd given his counter-cultural artist background (how did he hold a part-time job at all? were his employers like UC Berkeley, UC Davis, USC, and ASU et al completely nuts? Here is the link to the Slate.com article for your review and edification - which about says it all. I am certain LG Williams is laughing at this on-going charade, perhaps for his next exhibition in Berlin.--Luv my range rover (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I've argued in favour of keeping plenty of modern artists at AFD. Luckily, Wikipedia doesn't rely on my expert opinion (or lack of it) but on what reliable sources say about a subject and what community consensus says about a subject's capacity to meet our inclusion criteria. The sources say what they say; your disagreement with them is irrelevant. The aim here is to build a consensus for keeping or deleting something. Sarcasm, insults, sock-puppetry and silly claims of "bias" get you no closer to that goal.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 03:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Clearly you're an Einstein, Stalwart. But, forgive me, let me point out to you (and the others) that this discussion concerns a contemporary artist, not as you say, "Modern" artist. You, again, prove you have no idea what you are talking about: please go and find "plenty of other modern artists" who need your special brands of [sic] expertise. --Luv my range rover (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * .  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 04:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: contemporary art isn’t at stake in this discussion. The debate is about whether or not Wikipedia should keep an article written by sockpuppets concerning a living person who tries with no success to draw attention to himself. (The fact checking detailed on the talk page has shown the list each sockpuppet has repeatedly pasted above doesn't establish LG Williams notability.) --Newnewbi (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's hard to sort out if we have consensus for "Weak keep", "Delete" or "Delete and salt". If we don't delete and salt, then it seems that the article will need to be continually watched to monitor added article content and deal with uncivil conversations since issues with sockpuppets and use of non-reliable sources dates back six or so years when the first article was deleted. It seems like its an incredibly ineffective use of resources - and essentially condoning uncivil, filibustering behavior regarding a marginally or non-notable subject.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: The subject's notability was never properly established by the chief contributor/sock operator Xxxartxxx (aka Art4em). Rather than take steps to properly establish the subject's notability, the user preferred instead to engage in bombastic diatribes, while belittling editors who were attempting to manage the article and to find any evidence that the subject was notable. The whole article reeked of promotion, and had I suspected before CaroleHenson and the other fine editors began renovating it, I would have nommed it for speedy delete under G5. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as notability has not been established; based on reliable sources he fails WP:ARTIST. Passing mentions like Osuna, who is also showing works by Soshi Mastunobe and L.G. Williams. don't do much more that verify showings in international markets.  Given more articles like the one in The Japan Times would go towards establishing that he has won significant critical attention. --Bejnar (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: this whole process has been a sham to williams --Alohasloha808 (talk) 07:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete and Salt: Obviously there are SPAs heavily invested in keeping this non-notable subject that's already been deleted off multiple times. I say let's salt the freaking earth and have done with the farce once and for all.  Nha Trang  Allons! 19:49, 24 December 2014 (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.