Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Tunberg (artist)


 * 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. Multiple reliable sources supporting inclusion per WP:ARTIST. Katietalk 13:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

William Tunberg (artist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:ARTIST I could not locate reliable sources for notability verification. Of the sources I found there was his official website, artsy, and the Robert Berman Gallery, which spoke more to the subject's works of art and not to his biography. Without reliable secondary sources establishing notability, I do not think this is worth of a WP:BLP Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 00:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

This page is under construction. Please re-review and let me know specifically what you would like me to do. This is a 50-year career, with articles and shows going back to the '60s. I'm locating and scanning the sources. There were no computers then. Nothing was digital until the late-'90s. Please be specific as to what you need. How do I prove the art shows? Scan in the announcements and attach? Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cstwct (talk • contribs) 23:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm leaving proper messages or if they are getting to you. I left a message before and now I can't find it, so I will leave another. This page is under construction. I'm adding cites as quickly as I can. Please re-review. Please also leave me a message if there is something you'd like me to do that I'm not doing. I've worked very hard on the page and will continue to improve it. I would appreciate your guidance and patience. Thank you. Cstwct (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  16:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC) *Keep I left an entire dialog yesterday about why I support keeping this article, but my discussion appears to have disappeared. Cstwct (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC) *Keep And I just spent a lot of time redoing my argument in favor of keeping the page, which disappeared also. Cstwct (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as there are no museum collections or otherwise actual substance and I found only major book collections for his father, so there's simply nothing genuinely convincing for his own article. SwisterTwister   talk  21:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Withdraw I undid the close per Whpq and I am attempting to withdraw my proposal for deletion. If I am doing this incorrectly still please let me know. Cheers  Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 01:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's inappropriate for you to try and WP:!VOTE twice. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Marchjuly, I did not vote twice. I'm writing to Comatmebro to let him know that I lost my argument in favor of the page 2X, an argument that took me a long time to write.  My comments weren't meant to be voting.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cstwct (talk • contribs) 04:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)   Sorry I forgot to sign.Cstwct (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like you posted a "keep" !vote with this edit and then another "keep" !vote about an hour and forty minutes later with this edit. This may have been an innocent mistake, but the end result is that it looks like you've !voted twice. You do not need to begin every comment you make with "Keep". Just follow the proper format and add your post. If you want to post something specifically for, then you might be better off trying User talk:Comatmebro. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Marchjuly is right. I made comments in the wrong section because of my ignorance of how Wikipedia works.  I've used Strikeout to remove the first comment (I'm learning).  The hour and 40 minute difference in posts is because that is how long it took me to write my argument in favor of keeping Tunberg's page.  I've lost my argument twice, and I think this is because the software deems me to be inactive while I'm composing and logs me out as a precaution, even if I'm hitting Preview during the process, which is not enough.  I don't know how else to explain this.  I will write it again and have it up by the end of the day.Cstwct (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep this page. I can't believe you are considering deleting this page. 2605:E000:6303:A500:AC68:6E8D:F045:54D6 (talk) 04:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I disagree with SwisterTwister, who is placing too much emphasis on the importance of museums and no emphasis on the importance of religious institutions that inspire faith, universities that teach our children, and cutting edge innovators, such as General Dynamics, that invent new technologies in aerospace, maritime and IT.  Institutions such as these are Tunberg's collectors.  Placing importance only on museums is a narrow view of art.


 * I haven't had the opportunity to develop the most important section in Tunberg's page, which is the Marquetry section. Tunberg has taken marquetry out of the decorative arts and into the fine arts – he has joined together two distinctly different worlds.  Tunberg has been called a "master of modernist marquetry" by Peter Frank, a renowned American art critic.  (Frank, Peter. "Art Pick of the Week". June 19-25, 1998. LA Weekly).  Tunberg has also been called a "marquetry master" by Interior Design magazine for the furniture and sculpture he created for Chapman University's Interfaith Center.  (Cohen, Edie. "A Congregation of Talent". August 2005. Interior Design, pp. 186-193).  I haven't had the opportunity to discuss Tunberg's innovations in marquetry, such as the technique he developed to bend marquetry over 3-D sculptural forms and half-rounds; nor the finish he developed to keep lacquer from cracking when wood moves due to temperature changes.  Before Tunberg, marquetry was never used as a medium in contemporary fine art sculpture.


 * I haven't had the opportunity to discuss the above because I've spent an inordinate amount of time learning Wikipedia and trying to keep his page from being deleted. I've responded to your objections.  I've gone through his bio, pulled out his museum exhibits, and inserted them into the article to make them more visible.  When you objected to the lack of cites and links to other Wikipedia pages, these issues were corrected.  And this was no small feat.


 * Tunberg has had a 50-year career, 35 of which were nondigital. In order to obtain the required cites, we have to pore over old magazines, catalogs and newspapers that have been collected for decades and thrown into boxes.  It means finding and scanning not only articles and newspapers, but old negatives, slides and photographs.  For the majority of Tunberg's career, there was no internet where you could put in a search term and pull up needed information.  Nor were there digital cameras where you could take a photo, upload it to a computer and fix it in Photoshop.  Photography was done the hard way -- with traditional film and negatives.  In any event, in Tunberg's day, documenting was not a priority; the artwork was most important.  Today, hype is everything.


 * I respectfully request that you allow Tunberg's page to develop and mature so the reader can obtain a complete view of Tunberg's accomplishments. I also think it's important so young artists will know that marquetry is a viable medium for fine art sculpture.  It's a very difficult medium, which is off-putting, but hopefully the images of marquetry sculpture on Tunberg's page will inspire young sculptors.


 * Finally, I can't address SwisterTwister's remark "I found only major book collections for his father." I'm not sure what ST is referring to, since Tunberg's father didn't write books.  He was a radio, television and screenplay writer.


 * I would appreciate it if you would resolve this matter at your earliest possible opportunity. Thank you.Cstwct (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not here to exist for "what you think children should learn about and from who", Wikipedia accepts articles for artists in permanent collections necause it's a major achievement and o ly a select number of them get collected. Also. By book collections, I meant that his father's authored works are still in libraries. Artists being in museum collections is something we've always had including here at AfD. The two things we've established helps for such notability is either art reviews or collections. SwisterTwister   talk  17:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You misinterpreted the concept I discussed at the beginning of my rebuttal. Further, your quote (not mine) doesn't accurately reflect the intent of my words.  And, as I mentioned in my rebuttal, Tunberg's father did not write books; therefore, since his books don't exist, they wouldn't be included in libraries.  He was a radio, television and screenplay writer.  The four images on the page you saw were movies he wrote.  If you had scrolled past those images, you would have seen his filmography.  I agree that museums are important, but you can't put so much importance on them that you discount important institutional collectors and society at large.  With regard to art reviews, I can send you a crate of interviews if your interested.Cstwct (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as there are offline reliable sources referenced in the article, passes WP:GNGAtlantic306 (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 06:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 06:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. I'm not sure if the nominiator can proceed with the withdrawal now that at least one editor has supported deletion, but perhaps can be persuaded that while it is not required for artists to have their work in museum collections, that criterion has now been met, invalidating his claim that there's simply nothing genuinely convincing. Mduvekot (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I've put a message on ST's talk page, asking him to review this discussion and make his decision. His talk page says he's semi-retired and not very active. Any ETA on this? I'd like to get this resolved before the TG holiday, as that would be the perfect time to work on the article and supply Wikipedia with the forms and information it has requested. I don't want to put any more time into Tunberg's article if it's going to be deleted. Please advise asap. Thank you.Cstwct (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Many indications can be found in the article of this artist's accomplishments in the field of visual arts. Bus stop (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. The sources convince me that this artist is WP:NOTABLE. A piece at LACMA and mentions in Art in America and Esquire? Definitely. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 11:39, 27 November 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.