Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamara Bane Gallery


 * 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 delete under BLP and WP:SNOW. I realise that this may be somewhat controversial, so let me explain. Whatever we do here, the current article must be deleted as the history contains any amount of problematic material - so I'm deleting it. It may be that snow-closing this AfD has the downside of preventing a discussion of where the subject is notable enough for a neutral and disinterested article, so I'm closing this without prejudice to the possibility of a properly referenced recreation by regular editors, under admin supervision - but with extreme prejudice against a recreation by Bubwater or any other editor with a perceived agenda. Any improper recreations should be speedied as illegitimate recreations of deleted material.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Tamara Bane Gallery

 * – (View AfD (View log  •  AfD statistics)

I don't know what policy or guideline I could pull out of the box to describe this mess. It's not only my doubts about the notability, it's the fact that it self-references to include some controversy and whatnot. If there's somebody who believes this "article" to be salvageable, give it a rescue-tag... I'm lost. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If you think the current article is bad, check out its history. this is really, really ugly. also check out Hajime Sorayama and its history. i did some minor fixup months ago on this article, and more of the same legal crap is being battled out there as well. I would be happy to see this gallery article deleted and salted, and any and all editors involved in this weird dispute warned or blocked, and the artist article protected. i'm not sure if any of the legal matters are worth having in his article at this point. thanks for catching this one. i hope we can get to the root of this.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment-reply: Did fight myself through the entire history. Agree, complete mess. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, as far as I can tell. The gallery doesn't seem to meet WP:COMPANY, and this article is about 1/3 gripe, 1/3 unsourced negative BLP, and 1/3 advertisement.  For the life of me I can't tell what this is trying to say.  --Glenfarclas (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 *  Speedy Delete  There is nothing here worth salvaging. This isn't an article, it's a rant. DarkAudit (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete a couple of comprehensible sentences on the dispute might be worth adding to Hajime Sorayama. Johnbod (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or speedy delete and salt due to some WP:BLP issues. This doesn't satisfy WP:COMPANY and as others have said, if something could be salvaged from this mess, there wouldn't be much left. I agree with Johnbod, send what's left to the other article.  freshacconci  talk talk  16:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or Speedy Delete non-encyclopedic mess, art related dispute - take it somewhere else...Modernist (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia Collective: ''I would examine the critics of this article in regard to their relation to association to Tamara Bane Gallery and in particular to the factual substance concluded by no less than 5 federal judge over 4 years. It was made a mess by someone who went in and added Fabian Perez promo data that did not belong. It is now clear and surely could be edited a bit better but deserves to stay to be favorable to historical fact in context of the arts in our society. (see my co-track). I believe what may be best is to bring an expert eye that is totally objective to study this case and its truly historical importance to the Bern convention, VARA and title 17. While at bringing on some art experts to study the importance of art fraud and embezzling in the context of a flourishing society, one may bring in three legal experts (like the BAP and 2 federal Judges who made conclusions)---Oh! Another idea would be to research and read PACER--there are three decisions and rulings by at least 5 federal Judges on this baby.Bubwater (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Be real!''Bubwater (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec)You've been at it since February with at least three different accounts (User:Bubwater, User:Bubblewaters, User:Bubwatermaster) and made it continuously worse, the latest of your many stunts is this one. Indeed: "Be real!" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia Collective: In reply to Choyoo who I will refer to as Fuuuu(I know you). You have been at this for 4 years of vexatious nonsense. It is concluded as fraud, fraud, fraud. That is the words of the last major ruling that also had No Discharge of Debt--a 24 month Chapter 7--enuf said. Details please on case...not on edits. These are the facts from no less than 5 federal Judges, reported on by at least three news firms and three forensic reports.Bubwater (talk) 06:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW Fuu (Choyoo)---arhturbane was cited for vandalism of the wiki site just this week. That ya boy re-writng history and getting vandalism added to federal court rulings of frauds and embezzling... Nice piece of work, Fuu.


 * Clarification request: Let me get this straight: after the long rants you've posted on this discussion, you are now making unwarranted accusations of sockpuppetry? If so, would those be directed at me, or at all of us? (Just making sure I understand your comments correctly) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarification request to you: I will not take your bait like the Judges suggest. Get the details of facts...the audios, the ruling transcripts and the findings of fact, the three forensic reports and do not leave out the last BAP encounter in front of 3 federal Judges.  Then go throguh the lines of this WIKI page and show where the facts are a rant. A tome I do not deny--it needs a bit of editing. Ted Koppel may come out of retirement to help us too.  Show the details and facts to refute.  get the detail on arthurbane in too---cited for vandalism by wiki just this week.  And I used two names forgetting one. The vandal though is clearly arthurbane   Bubwater (talk) 06:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Bub


 * Snowball Delete - This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for legal disputes. Perhaps the article could be developed in userspace.  At present it's a mess and while the editors are actively fighting over the page, it will stay a mess.  No prejudice for recreation in mainspace after the drama dies down. That's providing it meets Wikipedia standards for notability, verifiability, and reliable sources, of course.  Plvekamp (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Snowball, I take no pride in authorship and agree editing can only help. Deletion is highly unfavorable and not at all required as well. The elements of this history, in particular arts and art of crimes, are eternal in society's that fight for their arts and literature. This world is better than that and deserving of a great wiki encyclopedia of fact. BTW, the history of this art fraud is nothing new. It dates back from the 200os to the 1980s, and it is part of the police record at those times (many of the same players under different business names). To allow it (fraud) to rear its head under different facemask (sets of business names) from one decade to the next is to learn nothing from an encyclopedia of fact. It allows you society and courts to waste time and money. Find me an editor and contact me. Wiki will be judged historically favorable to keep it and its vital facts.Bubwater (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Bubwater

The legal dispute was over some time ago. Detail to me where it remains open ended.Bubwater (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia Collective:' Thank you for upgrading this to the area of visual arts (Gene ty). I would suggest again, and admit guilt of repetition, expertise on the Bern convention, VARA and title 17. These areas are why the specific Tamara Bane Gallery facts here are quite important in context of the courts and society. All parties mentioned in this article are not griped at but lauded in helping to present these issues. Promos are not sought in any way shape nor form except the time when Perez name was added by interests of Tamara Bane Gallery attempting to market itself and an artist. It confused it all for a time.Bubwater (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Bubwater

(copied from project-page's talk page) In reply to # Delete, as far as I can tell. The gallery doesn't seem to meet WP:COMPANY, and this article is about 1/3 gripe, 1/3 unsourced negative BLP, and 1/3 advertisement. For the life of me I can't tell what this is trying to say. --Glenfarclas (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The amazing thing here is that no one has noted the inordinate numbers of deletions requests with no countering viewpoints of detailed facts at all. That is except one person who researched all the relevant facts and cited rulings of at least 5 federal court Judges over four years. Hmmmmm.... could all these people yelling for delete, speedy delete etc etc possibly be friends of art fraudsters in our society. Do they want fraud to grow and abuse over 4 years of high court level work. This is not to mention a number of professional news organizations that wrote about this case that were also researched as well as scholarly books on art shows and marketing. I interviewed at length two forensics staff people too and studied the accounting forensics that no one bothered to do here. All point to fraud well beyond the art fraud and methinks that is the point of the Judge repeating it (fraud) many times over---PS there is an audio record of it. That too is publicly available to those who want to reply in detail---get it study it.

I looked up those few that cited WP and this particular wiki page reviewed and read the Judges' rulings and the findings of fact. This researcher also read the LA Times report, the Dunn & Bradstreet Report and the Los Angeles Business Journal reports. Just to be certain I went to the court in Dec. 2008 to hear the bankruptcy Judge (1 of the 5 or more federal Judges that have heard aspects of this case), state repeatedly that there is "fraud, fraud, fraud" ---her exact words about the ownership interests of Tamara Bane Gallery. In Dec 2008, a Chapter 7 (that is now over 24 months old---a very important point to those in the know about Chapter 7), ruled No Discharge of Debts and added another charge "embezzling". So all the criteria of wiki WP is met. The case is over and is history too. I requested details about it not being over and concluded. Details, please.Bubwater (talk) 06:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Bubwater (end of copy)


 * Delete Unreferenced with a nice helping of a negative WP:BLP. It just doesn't appear to cross the threshold of encyclopedic notability.  AniMate   09:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

'''At the very least, and to public benefit, I suggest removing all artist names and noting the art fraud case and No Discharge of Debt Chapter 7 bankrutpcy that added "embezzling". You can ask lawyers, police and terrorism type investigators and Judges why this would be OK and vital for public to know of.''' Bubwater (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * NOTE I have turned the article into a bare stub as there are potential BLP violations there and I have no time to go through all of the claims. As it stood it was purely an attack article. I've also protected it, so any changes will have to be requested on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Change endorsement to neutral With all of the irrelevant material excised, there is enough news coverage about and involving the gallery itself to make the stubbed version more worthy of a keep. But since much of that coverage is in passing as the location of an exhibition by an artist, I'll stay neutral for now. DarkAudit (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * NOTE Hi Dougweller and DarkAudit, It is not needed to go through all the claims to fact find on this simple fraud case.  The federal courts summarize their rulings in terse phrasing found in the rulings on PACER ( a few pages long), an official public archive of the courts.  The intent of this history - now erased from public view and buried here-- is exactly the bait that was being laid by art fraud supporters. I cannot fight the good fight alone without your help and others of wiki. Also, every day a Judge can make a wrong decision if such facts are excised; buried here under the rug.  In the worst case victims can be further victimized by a legal system as well when one sees DNA facts showing people to be innocent of convicted crimes. Here the DNA is PACER and the concluded cases of bankruptcy and federal trial court by one of the most prominent female Judges, highly regarded in California.  Note that the long list of dozens of artists over decades of Tamara Bane Gallery history have all abruptly left as your excise shows factually. Now the article does not point this out, leaving only two artists in your edited version--AN AD for these artists BTW.  By wiki taking the bait and excising the page facts is highly unfavorable to unwary trusting art collecting public and artists. There is no favorable warning danger beacon.  Of the shouters, not a single one put the facts to a real world test based on official records--many PAID associates of powerful legally related professionals that prolong crimes and a buyer beware mentality. They do not want Tamara Bane Gallery ownership interest' art and financial frauds to be known to public as Bernie Madoff frauds were covered up for years. They have done this too, before. This may likely embolden those of malicious intent in society and legal professions seeing that they can now contain WIKI via a group of shouters never presenting facts. Bubwater (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)  Bub
 * Comment I think you are really overestimating the interest in art-related articles on Wikipedia.  freshacconci  talk talk  17:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply Comment I am may underestimating it too. Art, literature, music and our museums are the fabric of any flourishing society.  This is article is related to arts but it is much more about art frauds, counterfeiting and financial crimes which are not only newsworthy but also timely to learn about here.
 * Reply Comment BTW, for those who are techies, the cyber aspects of this matter are most vital about Tamara Bane Gallery as it related to the internet of which WIKI is a subset make up the majority of this case where frauds were founded and used in an accelerated way via the inter global aspects of the internet. Tamara Bane Gallery transferred their decade old websites abroad to an island off of Portugal during the trial to hide it and then deleted about a decade worth of Tamara bane Gallery cyber websites / links to worldofpinup.com,  rbeditions.com and taboogallery.com from the waybackmachine archives. These were put onto a mac.com server also deleted a few months ago and onto auction websites to hide the frauds. Now WIKI is being another cyber tool to victimize others and may likely be another tool of clever fraudsters who shout down facts without any reference whatsoever to records.  They know what happened todayand they will take advantage to be sure.  I suggest removing all artist names and noting the art fraud case and No Discharge of Debt Chapter 7 bankrutpcy that added "embezzling".  You can ask lawyers, police and terrorism type investigators and Judges why this would be OK and vital for public to know of. Bubwater (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)  Bub
 * Bubwater, can you please read our conflict of interest guideline? The more I look over your edits, the more it appears that you have some sort of real life involvement here that is making you extremely biased. I'm sure everyone who is involved in legal dramas feel that they are notable, but most do not rise to the level of encyclopedic notability. Until you can demonstrate that this rises above a normal legal dispute using reliable sources, this is just another minor gallery that doesn't meet our notability standards.  AniMate   18:35, 10 December 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.