Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Lokiec (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Keep arguments to keep are both more cogent and more numerous. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 15:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Tim Lokiec
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject wrote to Wikimedia, requesting deletion. Our processes are such that we do not directly delete (with rare exceptions) but we will nominate for deletion on their behalf. They particularly object to inaccurate descriptions such as "He creates multiple, disconnected images to make a work, often using pens, markers and screen-printing to address subjects including drugs, bathrooms, sex and rainbows." S Philbrick (Talk)  21:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep No compelling argument has been made to delete the article, and the artist has been reviewed fairly extensively in reliable sources. If Lokiec perceives inaccuracies, I suggest that he post proposed corrections on the article talk page. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  22:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 *  Delete . I can see why he would object to that. It sounds ridiculous and it is the first Google hit for his name. It even gets used in the little bio which Google shows when you search for his name. I can see that it would be a real annoyance and an impediment to his being taken seriously. His notability is borderline. We don't need to have an article about him. The choices here are either to delete the article or to gut out the nonsense leaving a very small stub. Either would be OK but if his preference is for the former then I see no reason to deny him that. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * After editing it now seems harmless enough. Google are no longer showing the terrible old version of the lead paragraph when you search for him. Bing still is, but I assume that they will catch up eventually. I'll switch to neutral. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. It certainly seems that the article includes sufficient coverage in reliable sources to pass regular WP:GNG. It also seems that, whatever the article's faults, it isn't unsalvageable. It's a separate issue from this AfD, but perhaps the subject's objections could be copied to the article's talk page. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep . Seeing as how even in Articles_for_deletion/Tim_Lokiec they could not find cause to delete, we must keep. I'm content with a stub article and a set of reliable sources until someone does it right. -- RM 03:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The contentious statement was unsourced, and so I removed it as per WP:RELIABLE. -- RM 03:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete . Mduvekot makes a compelling argument. I still think that there are (barely) enough reliable sources. However, in such a borderline case, I think we should err on deletion when the person has requested deletion. That said, this person better remain a low-profile individual from this point forward. Any more significant coverage and there will simply be too much out there to prevent deletion in the future. -- RM 01:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. As per my previous statement, the additional sources push this over the threshold for significant coverage. And the editors have done a good job cleaning it up too, so TNT is no longer required. -- RM 13:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete perhaps as I still question it for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister   talk  05:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong keep I didn't realize that we deleted articles just because something may sound "ridiculous". A stub is certainly not out of the question, there's plenty of reliable sources that'll push it past - someone just needs to do it. Du</b><b style="color:#090">s</b><b style="color:#00F">t</b><b style="color:#60C">i</b>*Let's talk!* 13:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobody said that articles got deleted just because they sounded ridiculous. My point was that the content, now removed, was an embarrassment to Wikipedia and also a legitimate cause of annoyance and embarrassment to the subject which might impede him in being taken seriously. That, in itself, is only an argument to delete that part of the article not the whole thing. The argument to delete the whole article is that the subject has borderline notability and is concerned enough to contact Wikipedia saying that he would rather not have an article. One way to look at this is to ask whether deleting this article would leave a genuine gap that diminishes Wikipedia. I can't see that is does. It doesn't mean that we are going to start deleting articles about more notable people who might wish to avoid scrutiny. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the person who closes this may choose to delete the article (by default) if it fails to reach a consensus one way or another. Until that occurs, however, we should each focus on policy reasons to keep or not. -- RM 14:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. An American artist whose work is reviewed in the NYTimes is presumptively notable, and no attempt at refutation has been advanced. If article lousiness was a deletion criterion, AFD would be a lot busier. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. At first, I wanted to do what the subject of the BLP article asked us to do, for whatever motivation, as long as they were barely borderline notable. Uh oh, this artist has exhibited clear signs of notability by showing their work in notable galleries and cities and reliable sources. But then I checked the year of those shows: 2003, 2005 was the latest, and began to realize that if the subject of the article was notable, they no longer are, as nothing has been written about them in a long time. Prhartcom (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No opinion on the merits, but note that our practice is that notability is not temporary: once notable, always notable.  Sandstein   12:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment appreciated; that does sound correct. Prhartcom (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: I'm not seeing a convincing argument for deletion. Subject appears to pass WP:GNG. Article isn't great, but equally not terrible. — crh 23   &thinsp;(Talk) 13:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: Although art-cruft judgmental language--no doubt reflecting observers' issues more than the artist's--has been reduced, this is an article that didn't work.  Who the hell is justified in selecting completely arbitrary bits of quotes to define this artist and his work?  It doesn't add to the encyclopedia, and it does harm an individually continually with its irritating/condescending/judgmental posture, so please delete it. -- do  ncr  am  15:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we should WP:TNT it. The subject is notable, but it is pretty clear that the bias of the article is actually affecting the subject. Which is silly. If we blow it up, someone could have another go at starting again and hopefully this time it'll be more neutral. JMWt (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I do not see a specific policy or guideline to why this should be deleted. If someone has a problem with the article they or someone else can clean it up to make it accurate.  Jay  Jay What did I do? 19:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Do no harm is a solid principle to live by. See wp:Avoiding harm (DONOHARM).  It is an essay, but it suggests an inclusion test:  Is the information already widely known? Is the information definitive and factual? Is the information given due weight in relation to the subject's notability?  Most/all the material was NO, NO (not defining), and NO.  Then at wp:DONOHARM, "If there would not be enough to sustain the article, that is, the remaining content contains no evidence of notability, then temporarily delete the entire article." -- do  ncr  am  19:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep and agree with that our practice is that notability is not temporary: once notable, always notable, and with finding at least 6 Google Book references to this articles subject, and reviewing same, this article just needs some work, not deletion. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note I've rewritten the lead for this article adding references and citations, hope this helps. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note I've added more content and sourcing for this article. Hope it helps. Picomtn (talk) 12:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  23:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep This article subject has received significant coverage across numerous sources and passes WP:GNG. The rewritten lede and extra references added by Picomtn add greatly to the article. The artist has well crossed the threshold of notability as well. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, did you not notice that didn't add a new reference but created a second reference for smith that was already cited twice? Mduvekot (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi (cc ) Thank you so much for pointing this out, but, I failed in my invoking of reference 9 to reference 2 to fix this and don't know what I did wrong and am hoping you, or someone, can fix this as I'm off to class now. If not, I'll fix tommrow. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2016 (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.