Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Semple
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. --Coredesat 03:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Stuart Semple
- Stuart Semple (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)This WP entry reads like pure sockpuppetry. Semple has had only a couple of gallery shows, and his importance as a living artist is negligible. Apparently his only claims to fame were the notoriety of being associated with Uri Geller (itself hardly a notable thing) and of having stolen some materials from the Momart fire, which he "recontextualized" into "artworks". The fact that this WP entry was created from an anonymous IP address in Britain, and that same anonymous user has only contributed to this WP entry and the entry on the Momart fire, suggests that Semple himself created it. WP isn't a vanity press. I move for deletion on the grounds of him not being a notable living person.Bricology 17:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- And if I might add, to refresh ones memory, the WP "Criteria for the Notability of People (Artists): the person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors; the person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique; the person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; the person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries." A 26 year-old with just one verified solo Gallery show has definitely not met the WP:Notability criteria as a living artist. Bricology 19:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Tyrenius 22:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Per WP:BIO he has been "the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." There are two specific events which gained national media coverage in the UK. The first was a project concerning the Momart fire.(Daily Telegraph) The other was an art intervention in the Saatchi Gallery.(BBC, Daily Telegraph, The Times) He continues to receive media coverage in numerous outlets (go to stuartsemple.com and click "press"). The nom has rather misunderstood sockpuppets, of which there is no evidence or relevance here. Even if Semple created it (and we have no evidence of that), it is not a reason for deletion. Nor do we penalise anon editors per se. It was created in December 2004 and has been edited by a number of different users since (including myself). This easily meets the criteria for inclusion. Tyrenius 22:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm quite disappointed with what you consider logic in this case, but perhaps your involvement with editing Semple's entry is telling. Semple's alleged noteworthiness for his WP entry is as an artist, not as a provocateur (to wit -- "Stuart Semple (born 1980) is an English artist"). If merely being the subject of two incidents of notoriety in the press (only one of which is a live link, BTW) counts as "notability" by WP's standards, then surely there are thousands of amateur and mediocre artists who might as well do something (get arrested, whatever) that gets them mentioned in the media, and thus their own WP entry. Do any of the published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" actually speak to Semple's relative merits as an artist? Not a one. They merely say that he sneaked a painting into one of Saatchi's shows (a stunt done many times before by other artists), and that he stole some debris from the Momart fire site and repackaged it into his own "artwork". The fact that this work wasn't exhibited in any gallery or museum makes the notoriety all the more minor. And the fact that Uri Geller calls Semple his "protoge" ought to make it clear that Semple's main goal is publicity, rather than stature as an artist. Sad to see WP become party to that goal. Bricology 23:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- My editing of it is indeed telling, because it means I have already assessed it as worth keeping. I trust you are not implying anything other. All the links given are "live". There is one in The Times where the full article doesn't appear, which I think is one of the many glitches in the redesign of the paper's web site: I have emailed them about it. There is a fallacy in your reasoning, where you are concerned with "Semple's relative merits as an artist". Wikipedia has no interest in this whatsoever. We only care about his relative merits for notability, namely whether or not he has been the subject of reliable secondary sources, which he clearly has. Nor is it in the slightest relevant, in this respect, what his goal is, or whether he is "amateur and mediocre" - an implication which is anyway forbidden by WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, unless you have appropriate sources to substantiate it: Wikipedia is not a platform for personal opinion on matters. I realise you are a relatively new editor, and you may not be familiar with all of these policies; and I am sure that you have acted with the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind. Tyrenius 00:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Am I implying anything? Only that you, a fellow Britain, who has edited Semple’s WP entry are the the only person saying "strong keep", which wouldn’t exactly dispel suspicions of a conflict of interest in a court of law. Indeed, I believe I am acting with the best interests of WP in mind, to try to help prevent it from becoming turned into a PR vanity outlet on the level of MySpace. The fact that you assessed Semple’s entry as worth keeping has not convinced me one whit that it is worth keeping, merely that you believe it to be. Of course, I have no idea what qualifications you have to make that judgment, but I can tell you this -- as an artist who has had over a dozen solo shows in 4 different countries, been in many group shows in museums and other contemporary art events, been written up favorably in national art magazines (not merely websites or web-news), and sold many works, I’m perhaps in a better position to assess Semple’s merit as an artist than you. As for “amateur or mediocre” -- the burden of proof lies upon those making the claim otherwise. Does Semple make his living from his artwork? If not, then he’s an “amateur” by definition. Is his work praised by a considerable number of acknowledged experts as being of a high standard of quality? Then it may well be “mediocre”. And even though I would certainly more qualify by your criteria for my own WP entry, I don’t believe that I warrant one! If the issue is, as you claim, notability, then are you actually claiming that two mentions on web-news sites qualifies anyone as “notable” for ones own WP entry?! If so, millions of otherwise unknown people mentioned in two news or opinion articles should get in line, ready to dilute the whole idea of any “encyclopedia”. No, the fact is that Semple’s entire WP entry specifically deals with him AS AN ARTIST, not as merely some individual who appeared in two web news stories. You're trying to have it both ways: a WP entry about an artist, predicated upon non-artistic merit. Again, I draw your attention to WP’s "Criteria for the Notability of People (Artists):The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors; the person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique; the person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; the person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries." Semple has not met even ONE of those criteria. Semple is an artist, he has a WP entry that deals 100% with him AS AN ARTIST, but he fails WP:Notability Living People (artists). QED. Finally, you claim that “all the links (on Semple’s entry) are live”. Apparently you didn’t bother to click on the second of his three links (to The Telegraph's story), which is quite dead .Bricology 02:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Link mended. Gordonofcartoon 03:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- I presume you mean "Briton", as I am not a country. However, it is prohibited on wikipedia to make negative personal comments on other editors, including their (presumed) nationality. See WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Please comment on issues, not editors. You have not understood wiki's criteria: valuations of artistic worth such as "mediocre" or "amateur" are irrelevant, as I've already pointed out. You are also confusing the notability guidelines. There is a general guideline as in WP:N and the top of WP:BIO. The specific profession guidelines do not supercede this, but can also be considered. These are all guidelines and not set in stone (see WP:LAWYER). Wikipedia has more space than paper encyclopedias and a lower threshold. What you say about yourself would seem to be enough to meet wikipedia's standards. I was referring to links in my post above, not the ones in the article, though I've now put them in the article anyway. The mentions are not mere "web-news sites". They are the online versions of UK national papers: i.e. the same stories that have appeared in print. The stories also deal specifically with events that he has undertaken as an artist. Tyrenius 06:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Link mended. Gordonofcartoon 03:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Am I implying anything? Only that you, a fellow Britain, who has edited Semple’s WP entry are the the only person saying "strong keep", which wouldn’t exactly dispel suspicions of a conflict of interest in a court of law. Indeed, I believe I am acting with the best interests of WP in mind, to try to help prevent it from becoming turned into a PR vanity outlet on the level of MySpace. The fact that you assessed Semple’s entry as worth keeping has not convinced me one whit that it is worth keeping, merely that you believe it to be. Of course, I have no idea what qualifications you have to make that judgment, but I can tell you this -- as an artist who has had over a dozen solo shows in 4 different countries, been in many group shows in museums and other contemporary art events, been written up favorably in national art magazines (not merely websites or web-news), and sold many works, I’m perhaps in a better position to assess Semple’s merit as an artist than you. As for “amateur or mediocre” -- the burden of proof lies upon those making the claim otherwise. Does Semple make his living from his artwork? If not, then he’s an “amateur” by definition. Is his work praised by a considerable number of acknowledged experts as being of a high standard of quality? Then it may well be “mediocre”. And even though I would certainly more qualify by your criteria for my own WP entry, I don’t believe that I warrant one! If the issue is, as you claim, notability, then are you actually claiming that two mentions on web-news sites qualifies anyone as “notable” for ones own WP entry?! If so, millions of otherwise unknown people mentioned in two news or opinion articles should get in line, ready to dilute the whole idea of any “encyclopedia”. No, the fact is that Semple’s entire WP entry specifically deals with him AS AN ARTIST, not as merely some individual who appeared in two web news stories. You're trying to have it both ways: a WP entry about an artist, predicated upon non-artistic merit. Again, I draw your attention to WP’s "Criteria for the Notability of People (Artists):The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors; the person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique; the person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; the person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries." Semple has not met even ONE of those criteria. Semple is an artist, he has a WP entry that deals 100% with him AS AN ARTIST, but he fails WP:Notability Living People (artists). QED. Finally, you claim that “all the links (on Semple’s entry) are live”. Apparently you didn’t bother to click on the second of his three links (to The Telegraph's story), which is quite dead .Bricology 02:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- My editing of it is indeed telling, because it means I have already assessed it as worth keeping. I trust you are not implying anything other. All the links given are "live". There is one in The Times where the full article doesn't appear, which I think is one of the many glitches in the redesign of the paper's web site: I have emailed them about it. There is a fallacy in your reasoning, where you are concerned with "Semple's relative merits as an artist". Wikipedia has no interest in this whatsoever. We only care about his relative merits for notability, namely whether or not he has been the subject of reliable secondary sources, which he clearly has. Nor is it in the slightest relevant, in this respect, what his goal is, or whether he is "amateur and mediocre" - an implication which is anyway forbidden by WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, unless you have appropriate sources to substantiate it: Wikipedia is not a platform for personal opinion on matters. I realise you are a relatively new editor, and you may not be familiar with all of these policies; and I am sure that you have acted with the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind. Tyrenius 00:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm quite disappointed with what you consider logic in this case, but perhaps your involvement with editing Semple's entry is telling. Semple's alleged noteworthiness for his WP entry is as an artist, not as a provocateur (to wit -- "Stuart Semple (born 1980) is an English artist"). If merely being the subject of two incidents of notoriety in the press (only one of which is a live link, BTW) counts as "notability" by WP's standards, then surely there are thousands of amateur and mediocre artists who might as well do something (get arrested, whatever) that gets them mentioned in the media, and thus their own WP entry. Do any of the published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" actually speak to Semple's relative merits as an artist? Not a one. They merely say that he sneaked a painting into one of Saatchi's shows (a stunt done many times before by other artists), and that he stole some debris from the Momart fire site and repackaged it into his own "artwork". The fact that this work wasn't exhibited in any gallery or museum makes the notoriety all the more minor. And the fact that Uri Geller calls Semple his "protoge" ought to make it clear that Semple's main goal is publicity, rather than stature as an artist. Sad to see WP become party to that goal. Bricology 23:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Keep per Tyrenius. meets WP:BIO Johnbod 22:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep but wikify it, good grief!! --Attilios 23:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - NewsBank finds more than enough independent press coverage to rate him as notable. Gordonofcartoon 01:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, per above as stated, can use some help, Modernist 11:43, 2 July 2007 (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.
