Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Bidlo


 * 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 speedy keep. Page is being improved upon by the OTRS requester, and there are no delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Mike Bidlo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is a request from WP:OTRS Ticket:2015121510003356 that this article be deleted. Could someone please assess the extent to which this article meets Wikipedia inclusion criteria? I have no position on whether this article should be deleted.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  16:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 17:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 17:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. In re: There is a request from WP:OTRS Ticket:2015121510003356 Dear Blue Raspberry and other respondents... When I emailed asking that an improved profile replace the chronically Pollock oriented one, I did not request that the Mike Bidlo page disappear.  Please observe that I have succeeded in posting significant improvements on the page now... This will be further improved by a copyrighted photograph I am inthe process of getting approval to use and additional links and dates for Bidlo's works. !! Please remove the deletion header from the Bidlo Page !!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.77.82 (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep . Now suggesting speedy keep (see below). Based on an initial review of the sources already presented on the page, and of other sources readily visible from Google and HighBeam searches, it's evident that he's notable in the Wikipedia sense of passing WP:ARTIST, and is an important figure in the history of appropriation art. In addition to many art publications, his work has been repeatedly discussed in The New York Times (notably this 2010 article among many) and New York magazine (for example ), and in plenty of books .  A recent article in Artforum revisits a landmark 1999 issue of the same magazine that discussed the rise and fall of the early 1980s East Village art scene, with Bidlo (along with David Wojnarowicz) on the cover, and that identified Bidlo's 1984 "Not Andy Warhol's Factory" performance/exhibit at P.S. 1  as the "closing party for the moment at hand" . The article itself appears to be written in a neutral, fact-centered manner, with no obvious controversial material either in the article or the editing history.  We have been given no explanation for the OTRS request, and as things stand there's no apparent basis for this to be deleted. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources provided in the article (and by Arxiloxos) demonstrate passage of GNG and ARTIST. The article is neutrally written and I don't see any obvious bias. While it could be improved further, IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid reason for deleting a page (via OTRS or otherwise)., what's the complaint in the ticket that would explain such a nomination? Primefac (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I should not speak for the person who wrote in and I do not have copyright permission to copy their text here. I did give them the link to this discussion if they wish to participate. Their email began with the request to delete the article or to change it. In my opinion, some of the changes they requested are not typical for inclusion in a Wikipedia article, but in any case, the email contained a request for deletion. They went on to say they might offer a new version in the future.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * it's very difficult to give a properly reasoned response to this deletion request without knowing the general reason for the original OTRS deletion request. I understand that you can't divulge specifics, nor the exact text of the email, but a general synopsis / summary of the OTRS request is required for this to be an informed discussion. Its sound suspisciously like "I think I could provide a better version" ("they might offer a new version in the future") which is just IDONTLIKEIT in different clothing. That's not how Wikipedia works. As far as I can see, there are no BLP issues, the sources stack up and without further information on the OTRS deletion request, it's a KEEP from me. We can't be expected to discuss these issues in an information vacuum. -- Cactus.man   &#9997;  21:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What I did was not the best way for anyone. I will manage these requests differently in the future and tell others what I learned.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Yesterday I emailed Wikipedia suggesting that the bio be removed in order to replace it with a comprehensive profile... I did not intend that the profile not exist. I have added a bibliography and begun to update and improve the existing profile. I am getting permission to use a copyrighted image of Mike Bidlo rather than a reproduction of a "Not Pollock” painting, which seems in itself to be an improvement on a "Profile" page.  L. Brandon Krall 15 December 2015
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Since it appears that no one is actually advocating deletion of this article, I suggest it be closed as a speedy keep per WP:SK. 's improvement efforts are appreciated. The article may need some attention from interested and experienced editors to assist with citation format, converting external links in the body of the article to footnotes (see WP:ELPOINTS), increasing the use of inline citations, avoiding bare URL links to avoid WP:LINKROT, etc. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:08, 16 December 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.