Undid revision 358488480 by Matthead (talk). Retracted for now, due to the suggestion by Pantherskin. |
|||
Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
* '''Delete''', I do not believe this individual has been the primary focus of coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 15:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC) |
* '''Delete''', I do not believe this individual has been the primary focus of coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 15:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''', as I said in one of the previous ones (the 2nd, I think). I wasn't convinced of the quality of the sourcing for the notability claims then, I see the evidence adduced here as further confirmation of the same, and I'm less than thrilled with the editing that has been going on at the article in the meantime and which has certainly not improved it. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 19:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''', as I said in one of the previous ones (the 2nd, I think). I wasn't convinced of the quality of the sourcing for the notability claims then, I see the evidence adduced here as further confirmation of the same, and I'm less than thrilled with the editing that has been going on at the article in the meantime and which has certainly not improved it. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 19:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete'''. This article on a non-notable subject was created by the person himself, violating numerous WP policies. -- [[User:Matthead|Matthead]] [[User_talk:Matthead|<font style="color:#ffff00;background:#0000cc;"><small> Discuß </small></font>]] 20:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:48, 26 April 2010
Richard Tylman
- Richard Tylman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
This article is about a Canadian poet/artist. However not a single article or mention has been made about him in any Canadian newspaper, either major newspapers, such as the Globe, the Star or the Vancouver Sun or local free newspapers. TFD (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I have notified the participants of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (3rd nomination), and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 18#Richard Tylman about this AfD. Cunard (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 02:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Weak delete. I think there is insufficient coverage of him for a Wikipedia article, per WP:AUTHOR. Some fairly obscure sources have been milked of all they had to get article where it is now. I realize this is a judgment call to some extent, and others will disagree, as they had in the past. His wiki-relationships inevitably color who !votes which way in the various AfDs and DRVs on this matter. Pcap ping 02:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 02:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. Here are the results of some google searches:
- As mentioned in the nom, he does not appear in any news articles.
- His official page is not linked to from any site on the web.
- The publisher, Aspidistra Press, for almost all of his works is not anywhere on the web. Perhaps these works are only Self-published.
- It appears that Tylman may be the only person to ever publish with Aspidistra Press.
- The last book listed, Koty marcowe, was published by a real(?) publisher. However, it can only be found at three libraries in the world(?), one of which being the U.S. Library of Congress. Anyone care to pick up a copy for review? ;-)
- I only found one location where a poem of his was published. (It was apparently in a free newspaper, Carnegie, published in Vancouver.)
- Justin W Smith talk/stalk 02:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Strong delete I think Justin's comments above are incredibly strong proof that there is no notability. His works are self published or not published by notable publishers, there are no Gnews hits, and the existing sources are minimal. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
WeakDelete - I did my own check on all of the references used in the article. Many of them are duplicates. One narrative from the subject is used as a reference several times. News references to his art exhibit are also used a few times (not enough to established notability in my opinion). I used Google Translate to translate 3 (123 of the 4 articles not in English (Polish, I think) to get as much of an idea as I could to their contents. The articles seem to only mention the subject if mentioning him at all. The only reason I say this is a "weak delete" instead of a "delete" is because of the Grand Owl award. The reference given is a scan of an article which I cannot translate to verify the award (although I can see that his name is used in the first sentence). Even so, I don't feel, from my research, that the award is significant enough to establish notability. If someone could prove that the award is significant to establish notability, I may change my mind (give me proof, not your opinion unless you're an expert on such awards). The award of excellence is most certainly not significant enough for inclusion, in my opinion. OlYellerTalktome 03:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Note - The Grand Owl, being a student award, is presumably given to students. As he hasn't been a student since at least the early 80s, I find it odd that an article wasn't written about it until 2009. This leads me to believe that the award is not significant enough to establish notability. OlYellerTalktome 03:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Note
From what I can tell, the Grand Owl Award is an award offered at the Fantasy Worldwide Film Festival. Since this festival's website appears to no longer exist, it's difficult to determine what it may be awarded for.Ok, this must be a different "Grand Owl" award. (03:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC))Justin W Smith talk/stalk 03:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Yikes. So apparently their official website is a MySpace page now. I retract my "weak delete" !vote and replace it with "Delete". I don't see the Grand Owl award could possibly be significant enough to establish notability.OlYellerTalktome 03:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
From the myspace page, it appears that 2007 was the last year the festival was active. The page mentions awards from 2005 and 2006, but nothing about a "Grand Owl".Justin W Smith talk/stalk 03:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- It was a "student poetry award sponsored by the Jagiellonian University", according to the article. TFD (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- This search makes doesn't help the cause of substantiality either. I'm still searching but finding nothing but mentions of the Grand Owl with Tylman. Mostly self published or uses Tylman as a reference for the award. I retract my last comment but keep the Delete !vote. I'm still searching and finding nothing. OlYellerTalktome 04:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete lack of coverage in any major sources indicates he probably isn't notable per WP:N regardless of any claims to awards. --Jayron32 03:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - last time I "voted" delete based on a quick glance. The information above seems to confirm what I saw: insufficient Wikipedia-level notability. (John User:Jwy talk) 04:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I checked the Proquest newspaper archive and the only two mentions were announcements of readings. Google Books doesn't bring up anything significant either. Will Beback talk 07:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. I went for keep last time to avoid the distraction from the Arbitration case, but it's clear that he doesn't meet our notability requirements. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Justin W Smith. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Note left on the talk page - in a nutshell, this AfD would benefit if only editors not involved in the AfD case or with the subject and main author of the article will comment here, to avoid the battles of the last AfD and to allow for a consensus. Pantherskin (talk) 10:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Permit me to quote what Anti-Nationalist said at the deletion review [1]
Quote from Anti-Nationalist on a previous AfD/Deletion Review (Click Show ->)
|
---|
Well, then – my rationale – and so far so good. What, then, do the Wikipedia biographical guidelines tell us?
|
I agree entirely with all of this. Varsovian (talk) 11:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I can't believe the article is nominated - yet again, it's starting to get a bit ridiculous. Also if somebody could please tell Varsovian to avoid copying walls of text from previous discussions, he can simply link to it. Otherwise we can all start copying lots of text from previous AfDs... Dr. Loosmark 11:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure "it was nominated before" is a terribly strong arguement for keeping the article around now. Do you have any evidence that the person has received indepth coverage from reliable sources, which would directly refute the concerns of most of the editors that have voted "delete"? --Jayron32 11:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Although he's not technically part of WP:EEML, Loosmark has in the past been subjected to a topic ban for nationalistic edit warring on Poland-related stuff: User talk:Loosmark#Topic ban. Expecting rational arguments here is a waste of time. (I expect another editor of the same lot to complain on my talk about bringing up EEML anytime time now, as it has happened in the past; don't bother this time, I'll just rollback.) Pcap ping 12:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure "it was nominated before" is a terribly strong arguement for keeping the article around now. Do you have any evidence that the person has received indepth coverage from reliable sources, which would directly refute the concerns of most of the editors that have voted "delete"? --Jayron32 11:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes indeed, I was not "technically part of the WP:EEML, same as you for example have also not been "technically part" of the WP:EEML. I was also not topic banned for "nationalistic edit warring" on Poland-related stuff but of course like usual in these discussions any personal attack goes. Dr. Loosmark 12:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. I participated in the previous AfD, where I also !voted "delete". I have been asked to participated in this one by Cunard (although his note above indicates that he notified all the participants of the previous AfD). Too little specific and detailed coverage of him for passing WP:ANYBIO and not enough to show notability under WP:CREATIVE. The only individual award mentioned in the article is Grand Owl which seems to be a student level award. No significant published reviews of his work are mentioned in the article. I looked up the library holdings for some of his books in Worldcat and they appear to be rather minimal[4][5][6]. Also, this is a WP:AUTO case, and, per WP:AUTO, autobiographies on Wikipedia are "strongly discouraged", which gives an additional impetus towards deletion. Nsk92 (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete (after looking at the AfDs and at the article's talk page) Sorry, but, I can't see any source that makes me say "yes, this source shows that he is notable by wikipedia standards". I don't see clear proof that he had significant impact in literature or in painting/illustration. Some sources looked good but, when looking at the sources in detail, all of them had some problem that invalidated them for notability purposes. Just as an example, Matthead commented on the second AfD that the Graphex award looked more like one of the secondary prizes handed out to the non-winners[7] and it was also awarded to a team and not personally to Tylman. I see a huge problem in the lack of third-party reviews of his work in notable literature journals. User:Anti-Nationalist analysis of WP:ANYBIO and WP:ARTIST looks correct. I agree with Ethicoaestheticist's comment in the original AfD: "Living in Canada since 1982, I would expect a notable artist/writer to have received some English-language press.".
- P.D.: I am not involved in none of the EEML mess, I spotted this in my watchlist, when someone posted notices at the talk pages of Fut.Perf., Hipocrite and JoshuaZ. Personally, I don't care about any COI held any editor, and I have only looked at the arguments about sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- weak delete In 2nd AfD I was a keep, but statements by Enric and Nsk92 above pushe me in the other direction. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. I am unable to assess the Polish-language cites so I will defer to opinions above. However, I live in Vancouver and can say that the event broadcast by "Shaw Cable" possibly had fewer viewers than have contributed to this page; public-access television is not a citation that evokes the kind of editorial control that I would expect from a reliable source. I haven't found anything in local sources that indicates this individual has any notability at all. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, I do not believe this individual has been the primary focus of coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 15:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, as I said in one of the previous ones (the 2nd, I think). I wasn't convinced of the quality of the sourcing for the notability claims then, I see the evidence adduced here as further confirmation of the same, and I'm less than thrilled with the editing that has been going on at the article in the meantime and which has certainly not improved it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)