Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lindsay Dawson


 * 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. --Luigi30 (Ta&lambda;k) 14:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Lindsay Dawson

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- . It was contested with a reason of "Lindsay Dawson is a notable artist. He has been painting professionally for over twenty years. In addition he is a regular Television Guest on the National show "the Fine Art Showcase". He has appeared five times to date, and is scheduled to appear again in March. He is also listed on the AskArt.com site, and the Internet Movie Data base. He has also been published by three major art companies. they are listed in the bio. He has worked on numerous television shows and movies. More sources and references will be added asap". Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle 101  Need help? 20:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This article was tagged for afd before it was actually completed. The reason this happened was that it was the first article I had submitted to Wikipedia, and I did not realize that it would post when I saved it. I thought I could edit, correct, and add to the article before I published it to Wikipedia. I thought there would be a “publish article”  button somewhere, but of course there was not.  As soon as I saved  the initial article it published an unfinished piece and that was why it was tagged for afd. I believed “saving” the article would place it in cyberspace for future corrections without posting it to Wikipedia. I have since added reference, links, and corrections to the article which I believe meets the standards of notability and writing style for Wikipedia.  Please check out Dawson’s credentials before you make a decision.  I believe this is a Keeper article.  Dawson is certainly more notable than many artists listed already at Wikipedia (how many artists are on national TV as Dawson is regularly).  In addition, I will add a "published" area to the article, because Dawson has had over twenty published works of his original paintings.  I am in process of gathering the info for all of this, and will post it soon.
 * Thank you
 * L. Collins
 * Gallery 365
 * How did you want the article improved? In addition, it seems that the first reason given for speedy deletion (a notable person) has been lifted.  Is this correct?
 * more references have been added
 * The article has been improved by adding even more references.


 * Delete as is now. Lindsay Dawson is not mentioned once in any of WP's 1.6million articles, which seems strange for a "notable" person. Are the events mentioned in the article notable? They dont strike me as notable. - grubber 21:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It does not state anywhere in the Wikipedia:Notability on people section that to be notable they have to be mentioned in other WP articles. However he is mentioned and written about all over the web. - L. Collins — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.113.23 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 2007 February 9
 * The article does not establish notability as far as I can tell. If an artist is notable, then, for example, he is an influential person in a certain style or he wins some award. Dawson is not mentioned in his alma mater's notable graduates list. There's no evidence in all of wikipedia (let alone the article itself) that he is notable. - grubber 23:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I’m a little confused about this inclusion thing. Grubber above votes to delete because Dawson does not come up on other WP articles.  But in an old article (Edward R. Thaden) that was deleted Daniel J. Leivick wrote: Being mentioned in a Wikipedia article does not equal notability. Please read WP:NOTE and it will make everything a lot easier. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In addition, Dawson has talked at length on The Fine Art Showcase about how Political Art Center was. He paints in a style that is not Modern (and he actually makes money), and for that reason Art Center does not want to recognize him. He has won several awards including the California Arts league Best of show (1991).  As I have stated I am getting more of this information together.  I'm still bewildered by the shifting standards for notability. For example check out Ferenc Cako who is listed here at WP.  He has no sources, references at all, and does not appear in any other WP articles.  The only links are to his site, and a video of him doing his art (cool as it is).  Why is this acceptable as an article and Dawson is not?  I am not trying to be a pest.  I truly am trying to figure out the standards.
 * Thanks for reading my lengthy post - L. Collins
 * It says above that my post was unsigned (although I did sign it), but I wasn't logged in. Sorry for this.  I am not a tech person.  I am an art collector. - L. Collins
 * In response to Grubber’s comments about not being listed on Art Center’s notable Graduates WP page. As mentioned above Dawson has explained in many interviews, but also he did not graduate (please see WP article), he only attended for three years, so he would not be listed under notable graduates because he isn’t one.
 * Grubber also asserts: “If an artist is notable, then, for example, he is an influential person in a certain style or he wins some award.” Please see list of awards below which have also been added to the article.
 * California Arts league Best of Show, 1991 (media/oil on canvas)
 * Gold Star, Worldfest Charleston International Film Festival, 1997 (media/film)
 * Gold CINDY, International Cinema in the Industry competition, 1997 (media/film)
 * Bemerkenswert Award, Festival Der Nationen, Austria, 1998 (media/film)
 * World Premiere, Breckenridge Festival of Film 1998 (media/film)
 * In addition, Dawson is very influential in his style of Impressionism. He is one of only ten living artists to be represented by The Fine Art Showcase. (a national TV show) that also represents Salvador Dali and Azoulay (who is the youngest living artist ever to have his work accepted into the permanent archives of the Musee du Louvre in Paris).  Dawson is the ONLY impressionist that they represent.  This fact alone is prestigious and notable. Therefore it would seem to me that Dawson has certainly exceeded the standards which Grubber has listed.
 * Once again I would like to point out Ferenc Cako that IS listed on WP. One can debate whether a museum exhibition is more important than a national award, but you certainly can’t debate that Dawson’s credentials far and away exceed Ferenc Cako’s.  Please don’t dismiss Dawson so easily.  He is more influential and notable than other artists already listed on WP.  It would seem to me that to remain consistent and fair that the article would be kept.  How else could I gauge what is and isn’t acceptable on WP if WP is not consistent with there definition of “notable person”? L. Collins – 2-9-07
 * Every artist has a list of awards. That does not entitle them to an article. When I read the article about him, I do not see anything "notable". If he is notable, then the article must talk about those accomplishments. The fact that the article does not establish notability and that nothing in wikipedia itself vouches for his notability and the fact that the top 10 results from Google are sites selling his art (rather than vouching for his artistic abilities) makes me believe he is not notable. If there is something notable, then add it to his article. Otherwise the article should be deleted. - grubber 17:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In response to the first point: Grubber stated: “the article does not establish notability as far as I can tell. If an artist is notable, then, for example, he is an influential person in a certain style or he wins some award.” When I listed a series of award Grubber dismissed it this way:  “every artist has a list of awards. That does not entitle them to an article.”  So in one post he states that one award would establish him as notable, but in another post a series of awards is not valid.  I’m confused about the standards.  In addition, it is obvious that every artist does not have a list of awards especially at Dawson’s level.
 * In response to grubbers second point above: I have added to the article, and have established Dawson’s notoriety beyond what I see in almost all of the other articles at WP (imho).  Please read the article.
 * In response to the third point I had stated above: Grubber above votes to delete because Dawson does not come up on other WP articles. But in an old article (Edward R. Thaden) that was deleted Daniel J. Leivick wrote: Being mentioned in a Wikipedia article does not equal notability. Please read WP:NOTE and it will make everything a lot easier. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In regards to the forth point: Grubber states that Dawson’s top ten hits are sites selling his work (rather than vouching for his artistic abilities).  Actually it’s 9 out of 10; one being the ASKART.com hit that does vouch for his notoriety.  I did a search on Thomas Kinkade (arguably the most notable living artist) and his top 9 hits where also sites selling his work.  I also did a search on Wyland (another incredibly well known Artist) and his top 10 hits where of sites selling his work.  Both Kinkade and Wyland are included at WP, so the top 10 hit rule is obviously not a way of establishing notoriety.  In addition, does the fact that sites sell his work mean that he is NOT notable?  I would think just the opposite.  Most artists do not make a living at it until they are notable.
 * My statement in regards to Ferenc Cako was not addressed.
 * I appreciate all the feedback from Grubber. I am truly, with all honesty trying as hard as I can to understand and comply with the “notable Person” standards.
 * Thanks—L. Collins 2-10-07
 * This issue will not be decided solely on what I think. There will be (hopefully) ten other people who will vote on this deletion. This takes a few days and we'll see what other people think. - grubber 22:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Addhoc 18:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless reliably sourced per above searches. For the avoidance of doubt, none of the seven references currently in the article are reliable. Addhoc 18:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

In response to Addhoc; why aren’t the sources reliable? They are real brick and mortar businesses with real people that have written about Dawson’s art. Is Addhoc saying that if they were “reliable” then the article would stay? Why are there other articles at WP about living artists with NO references (Feenc Cako and Kent Williams to name two)? If I removed the references would the article stay? Please help me to improve this article so it can be kept. The references are real. Please tell me the proof you need. Please tell me the standards I need to meet in this article. Thanks, L. Collins 2-12-07


 * Delete. The current references all seem to be promotional in nature, except for imdb.com, which says very little. You would not expect a sales outlet to give an unbiased judgment. Surely if he is widely known his work will have been reviewed in the press. For the definition of a reliable source, see WP:RS. EdJohnston 01:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually there are three sources that are not promoting his work: imbd, askart.com, and the Montecito article (can be verified offline). The fact that most of his references are promoting his work is one of the reasons that he is notable, because he has been very successful. A lot of what has been said about Dawson has been on television. How can I verify that? Thanks - L. Collins 2-12-07


 * Delete - I don't think notability via WP:BIO has been established to an acceptable degree. It's just skating the edge... ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Content of article shows that his work is actively marketed but no 3rd party references about notability that does not have a commercial interest. AskArt and IMdb are just databases that do not establish notability. The additional material that has been added just shows the artist is heavily promoted (New York Art Expo, ect) but that does not mean notability... it just shows an artist that is being "pushed" by an advertising campaign. As is it is just too thin and too much of an "advertisement". Fountains of Bryn Mawr 04:27, 13 February 2007 (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.