Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Wrathell


 * 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. Although several editors have argued against deletion, none of them have substantively addressed the concerns of those arguing for deletion - namely that of significant coverage in reliable sources. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Mike Wrathell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Deleted and restored PROD. My rationale for filing the PROD is "Non-notable artist behind non-notable movement. Lack of sourcing is due to dearth of coverage." I stand behind that rationale, and also add that the article is clearly promotional, and appears to have a COI author.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  19:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

While some artists and the art movements they are in have more coverage, that does not mean Wrathell and the Ultra-Renaissance do not produce art that is of high quality. One of Wrathell's works was referenced in January of 2006 by The Chicago Tribune when they reviewed a group show of art at The Art House in Oak Park, Illinois. Wrathell has had shows at Portland State University in Portland, Oregon, at 4-Star Gallery in Indianapolis....(http://www.4stargallery.com/), Coldfish Gallery in Brooklyn, NYC, New York, and a few galleries in Metro Detroit where he is from and now resides. To say an entry about an artist and/or their art movement is promotional seems to be an opinion only. It is imperative for an art movement's rationale to be explained, so if that is going to be called promotional, then no art movements should be listed on Wikipedia whatsoever. It seems like a classic Catch 22. The same goes for an entry about an artist, really. If someone want to edit a bit to take the seeming promotionalisness out of this entry, I would be curious to see the result. Without stripping it of facts, that is. As far as high quality references, there are some of high quality. Sowff (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Sowff
 * Comment: On his userpage, User:Sowff claims to be Mike Wrathell. If that is the case, participating in this AfD would constitute a WP:COI, as would his earlier activity on the article under discussion. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 18:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I haven't a clue who Sven Manguard is, or what makes him think he is an art critic, but as managing editor for Issues and Alibis Magazine for the past 14 years I have often used Mike's art in the magazine to illustrate various articles both artistic and political. I also own several of his artworks which are displayed in my office and my home. Ernest Stewart — 68.61.70.176 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC).
 * Comment Sven didn't claim to be an art critic, he merely claimed that the existing article is not worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I know Mike Wrathell best known as a Pluto-Hugging caricature artist. His intergalactical characters are special - they're addictive. You'll need to inquire about the story behind each one but be careful - curiosity killed the cat! Virginiaerdie (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Virginia — Virginiaerdie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Not very good at all this code stuff. Trying to add a reference to Wrathell's artwork about Ashcroft. This is the link. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-01-27/entertainment/0601270197_1_censored-showcase-art-art-institute. If it looks funny or is not there, please add it. Thanks. Sowff (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Sowff 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

 E.L.Greeley (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC) 
 * Delete. The dry facts would appear to be as follows:
 * Article lacks sufficient sources to support notability.
 * A search for such sources came up dry. Primary source found (documentary on subject) is by a person related to the subject in a way that would cast doubt on source’s neutrality (she is listed as part of the ultra-Renaissance movement: [])
 * Independent source on the subject [] indicates that ultra-Renaissance movement has Wrathell as its only member. Although it seems likely that the independent source is incorrect on this point, it simply further highlights the dearth of available reliable sources.
 * The Chicago Tribune link supplied above does not mention the artist by name, instead it gives a summary description of a work that appears to match work produced by the artist.
 * It also appears (as suggested by user:Gwalla above) that the id user:Sowff is used by the subject, creating an inadequately disclosed WP:COI.
 * Comment It feels as though the article about Wrathell and the debate about deleting it from Wikipedia is almost an art project in itself, a mordant commentary on the fragility of notability in our information age and the dangers of collective wisdom and the hive mind so notably lamented by other artists such as Jaron Lanier. Indeed, some of Wrathell's work is potentially pioneering, reminiscent of the work of the early computer artist Lillian Schwartz. However, the biographical information available indicates that Wrathell is an attorney: if one legalistically applies the notability criteria against the evidence in the article and findable on the web (or not findable: nothing in JSTOR, nothing featuring the subject by name in the web-search of reliable sources), the subject fails notability as defined by Wikipedia policy. I suspect that Wrathell eventually may be deemed notable, long after Sven and I are mouldering in our non-notable digital graves, and that the fault lies not in Wrathell’s stars (or should I say planets?), but in the WP notability policy. Nonetheless, if as part of civil society we agree that rules we disagree with must be enforced, then this article clearly meets the criteria for deletion.
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Considering this page has been tagged as potentially not meeting the WP:GNG for nearly 4 years, and nobody here seems to be able to come up with anything that would allow us to make this into a reliably sourced page, I think it's high time to delete it. mikeman67 (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The Chicago Tribune is a reliable source. I am not up on all your policies. I never have tried to deceive Wikipedia. Just because a entry is tagged for nearly 4 years does not mean it should be deleted. Ovid was also an attorney as was Robert Lewis Stevenson. Those who want to delete just seem to enjoy deleting. I thought we were having a discussion. Art is something of value and Wrathell is creating art that is exhibited and mentioned in major media outlets and 4 Star Gallery in Indianapolis a major gallery. Waiting for them to update their archives to reflect a show he was in. Infants now can't even play with blocks. Art is dying in America through no fault of Wrathell. Wikipedia should not start deleting living artists because of a few people who enjoy purging Wikipedia for seemingly personal reason such as length of time being tagged and whether a person is also an attorney, etc. More discussion is needed. More commentators will come. Already there are two pro-Wrathell comments besides mine and they are substantive. Sowff (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Sowff
 * Hi there Mr. Wrathell (I am referring to you as that as your user page identifies you as him). I would of course agree that the Chicago Tribune is a reliable source. Unfortunately, for the purposes of this discussion, a source needs to actually refer to the topic in question. Please take a look at WP:N for a primer on how the notability guidelines work at Wikipedia. That is the sole criteria that editors decide whether a topic deserves a page here, even if you feel strongly otherwise. You'll see there that for this rather low threshold to be passed, there must be significant coverage, which is coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Considering that you are not mentioned at all, the Chicago Tribune article simply has no relevance to the discussion here. Also take a look at WP:BIO for more specific information on how the notability guidelines apply in regards to pages on individuals. As that article says, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." These policies ensure that all information on WP are the product of reliable sources. mikeman67 (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

sheila franklin is an independent documentary filmmaker. She was given a place within the Ultra-Renaissance webpage after the documentary was made. One reason for that is because her former executive producer misappropriated her prior films and it was felt she needed a web-presence independent of him to make people aware of her works, including documentaries made before "the king of pluto" which was about Wrathell and his art. She is not an Ultra-Renaissance artist. Sowff (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Sowff

PAGE''' ]] ) 22:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * delete Nonnotable artist with works of questionable quality. No independent reliable coverage . Staszek Lem (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: To all the new editors, welcome. Please note that the determinant for inclusion in Wikipedia is notability, and that notability "does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity" (or quality of work, for that matter). With the exception of Staszek Lem's comments (which I feel are completely uncalled for), those calling for deletion of the article aren't doing so out of a lack of respect for the artistic quality or value of the artwork, a doubt as to the rationale behind the artistic movement, or questions about the addictive qualities of his characters. If there is non-trivial coverage of the artist himself (and not his artwork) in reliable secondary sources then this article should be kept. Otherwise, it should be removed until the subject has received such coverage. --Ahecht ( [[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK
 * Please don't mess with other people's posts. I am I my full right to express my opinion about artistic quality of an artist, and this has nothing to do with civility. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As the artist himself has, rightly or not, been participating in this discussion, it most certainly does have to do with civility. It was an insult, albeit a mild one. Your opinion of the quality of his work is also irrelevant: the aesthetics of the subject cannot be a reason to keep or delete an article. The lousiest artist and the greatest merit articles if and only if they meet the criteria for inclusion. While it probably would have been better if Ahect had asked you to change it yourself, I should point out that WP:RUC (a section of WP:CIVIL) specifically says "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor." &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 17:06, 22 April 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.