Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Party Down Scandal (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. X clamation point  02:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Party Down Scandal (LG Williams)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable. Also not news, original research, conflict of interest and others. This is a recreated article that was previously speedied although it probably should have gone to AFD at the time. Now it has been recreated we may as well do this properly.

Apologies for the voluminous commentary. Unfortunately, I have found that when discussing articles by Art4em (talk/contributions) the reading lists and in-line citations sometimes appear convincing if one only has a quick look at the article. Art4em is a single purpose account (all substantive edits have been limited to articles about LG Williams and Wally Hedrick, who LG Williams apparently knew). LG Williams is not a notable artist and all contributions on or about LG Williams have previously been speedied or deleted following AFD.

The substantive reference in this article is one 1999 novelty piece in a college newspaper. The additional references are "Hurst artwork rescued from rubbish, Guardian News, October 19, 2001", which makes no mention of the "Party Down Scandal", and Artweek magazine, which is a new addition. Although I have not tracked down the Artweek article, based on past history the odds of it containing any reference to this "incident" are not good. Regardless, a single additional source wouldn't even come close to demonstrating notability here. I've done an extensive search of popular and academic databases and haven't been able to find anything additional myself.

Note also that the "Further Reading" section is not a reference list, it is simply a list of sources, some of which mention LG Williams in passing and some of which don't. None, however, mention the 'Party Down Scandal'. This reading list is routinely added to the bottom of Art4em's various articles. If anyone is interested, each one was teased out in detail during previous AFDs, particularly on the talk pages of the now deleted articles L. G. Williams and House_where_the_Bottom_Fell_out (See Articles_for_deletion/House_where_the_Bottom_Fell_out). Debate  木  11:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. –  Ty  12:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Author's comments: Let us be clear here

My apologies to any new editor, but my patience has run thin:

1. This another clear case of harassment: please note that the actions taken by the above debate were statedly unlearned, taken "without tracking down the additional articles". Wiki policy does not state anywhere that actions can be taken without disproving references, therefore, again, this instance is another instance of ignorance, slander and harassment.

2. Please note from my above quotation, another impartial learned editor said that upon supplying an additional, credible source, my article could be reposted. Therefore, again, this instance is another instance of ignorance, slander and harassment. All this is on my discussion page, however, I will quote the editor, again, here: 3. The Artweek article is not the 'single' credible source but the third. Artweek magazine is one of the largest art magazines in California. This characterization is another instance of ignorance, slander and harassment.
 * (If you can supply another) One or more reliable sources of that general calibur (you can repost the article). - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC) [1]

4. I object strongly, additionally, to my characterization of 'single purpose' -- rather, i would call it intelligent purpose, writing only on material which i am an authority. This characterization is another instance of ignorance, slander and harassment.

5. As per the above mentioned deleted articles, they were deleted outside the parameters of wiki policy, as in this particular case. Currently, I am in the process of returning all the deletions due to the injustice and continued harassment (per impartial editors advice and input -- as stated above). --Art4em (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The "additional reference" is in reality a reinforcement of an existing, offline archived news bit, stored on the editor's own webspace. Nothing fundamentally new here.  See my further commentary on the user's talk page for additional reason for deletion. (I will not redress issues of the author's 'patience' and perception of harrassment.  This is how the process works; if you consider being on the 'losing' side of an issue "harrassment," then you shouldn't be editing on Wikipedia.) - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. You show your true colors and intention in the first sentence: Hello? I thought the purpose of your requests for wiki citing multiple sources was for the multiple citations to report on a single situation -- not,(I cannot belive I am writing to point out such obvious ignorance...) cite multiple sources to report on multiple situations? LMAO! OMG, OF COURSE MULTIPLE SOURCES REPORT ON A SINGLE EVENT OR SITUTATION! HELLO! Please, do the wiki community a favor, and excuse yourself from this discussion.
 * 2. I only gave the online link because I knew that the wiki community would never go to a real library, omg. (More on this below.) So, knowing that, I saved you the hassle of performing real research by giving you a link to the exact same 1992 (pre-electronic) hardcopy article. (Is everyone this dim on this website? I would like to meet someone with some intelligence on this site: please pvt me!)--Art4em (talk) 06:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete A completely trivial event. Clearly a joke.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. You show your true colors and intention in the first sentence: you have ablsolutely no right to weigh in this discussion as an art critic. Your comment proves without a doubt that you are a joke, your merit it a joke, and you think this process is a joke. However, please note: THIS IS NOT A JOKE.  The citations are valid and credible. Note: If you were an art critic, you would know (as Dave Hickey said) art critics don't know a f$%king thing. Given this, please remove yourself from this discussion.
 * 2. A joke is not valid or invalid -- however it can be notable or not. Clearly, the real, educated, learned editors and readers of the action deemed it important by its sheer NOTABITY. Please take your lame personal, provincial, out-dated criticism elsewhere and see if you can find a publisher, possibly The New Criteron. But I seriously doubt you would have the merit. By the way brilliant, can you name one of the most importantly pieces of 20th Century sculpture,(hint Post 1945) that was made strictly as a inside joke? My point duffus is this: name an important work of Post 1945 art that does not have MD's tounge in its cheek? Good Luck --Art4em (talk) 06:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - The crux here is that the artist is not notable, not so much the work (which in reality isn't, either). We speedy articles about albums where the singer/band don't exist - why should this be any different? There simply aren't any verifiable sources there that could establish notability of anything. Having said that, judging from the author's talk page I see User:Debate's summation of the issue is perfectly correct and should also be considered here, since the article for the artist has been deleted at least twice already for lack of notability, and the author has had at least one other article about the work of this artist also deleted. § FreeRangeFrog 22:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. You show your true colors and intention in the first sentence: you have ablsolutely no right to weigh in this discussion as an art critic. The citations are valid and credible. Note: If you were an art critic, you would know (as Dave Hickey said) art critics don't know a f$%king thing. Given this, please remove yourself from this discussion.
 * 2. The crux here is the article and the action, period. -- not the artist.
 * 3. This was such a notable event from someone that does exist which has multiple credible / notable sources covering the event.
 * 4. The previous articles WAS NOT DELETED because of notabilty, but for 'lack of another citation' -- which i strongly objected too; and which I have now supplied.
 * 5. I am currently reinstating the articles that were erronously deleted, thank you.
 * 6. "PERFECTLY CORRECT SUMMATION!!!!" Would you really like me to list all of Debate's errors?  I have done that in the past, and would love the pleasure of pointing out its mistakes over and over again. Please advise!  In fact, he/she/it is the genius that said "I did such an exhausting web search on Party Down, and could not find another article about the incident". To which I reply, "maybe you should visit a common library and search the ART BIBLIOGRAPHY!  hahahahaa! The citation was there in black and white. Or when Debate said Wally Hedrick was invented by Art4em!  Should I continue? Read my discussion page for the luminious / volumious errors!  Or when Debate said "Drawing Upon Art: Workbook for Gardner's Art Through The Ages by LG Williams" didn't exist!!!! hahahaaa! Or, that House Where The Bottom Fell Out had no documentation??? Hello!, What is this: http://www.mauiweekly.com/2008/06/19/house_art/ ?!  Hahahaaaa! I have been laughing at all those written lines while reviewing my copy of Wikipedia: The Techno-Cult of Ignorance by Paulo Correa.  "PERFECTLY CORRECT SUMMATION, INDEED !!!!"  HAHAHAHAAAAA!

All of the above hopefully will remain in the record of ignorance and harassment. I take no fun at wasting my time pointing out ignorance. --Art4em (talk) 06:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and salt (and salt all speedy deleted related articles).  freshacconci  talk talk  11:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, this is really not happening...Modernist (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You should be ashamed of yourself for this stupid comment...I have read most of your stuff and it "is really not happening". Shame on you for being a wiki bully.


 * Do Not Delete this process is a sham. The article obviously has the sources and it is valid and notable. Leave your personal bias out of the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Art4em (talk • contribs) 23:45, February 20, 2009


 * Do Not Delete: the following negative editors are a bunch of bully's, period. I am ashamed at their behavior. DO NOT DELETE.  This article does meet the wiki requirement, but does not pass the terrible wiki art critics.  It must stand -- deletion is NOT wiki policy just because you are a group of small minded unhappy art critics.


 * Delete and salt per others. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:37, 22 February 2009 (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.