Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Waugh

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. Actionable consensus toward keep. KaisaL (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Waugh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The question in this case is whether or not the article passes the GNG. Although the subject is an artist, he is unable to meet WP:ARTIST has his work has not received sufficient attention.

There are a lot of references, but in the end all but three are irrelevant in terms of notability. The rest are either self published, primary or unrelated to the subject. The three which might be relevant are:

• James, David E. (2003). The Sons and Daughters of Los: Culture and Community in L. A. Temple University Press.
• Kaplan, Ben (January 2002). "Each of These Men Has a Secret". Marie Claire.
• DuValle, Christopher (August 9, 2012). "Death of a Dummy (Apri) Review". Best Horror Movies.

The Marie Claire one sounds good, but it seems too trivial. It isn't about the subject, but a fluff piece where a person tries to guess the secret of a small number of otherwise random people. If it was focused on Waugh I'd be inclined to count it, but there is not enough there for it to count towards notability. The David James book is a bit better, as it describes an early video piece, but it does so in two sentences while describing every piece on display at the event, and provides no information about Waugh. The third, Christoper DuValle, looked possible, but proved to just be a reader-submitted review of a YouTube video, and was not included on the list of official reviews on the site.

So I guess it comes down to whether or not the David James and Marie Claire pieces are sufficiently non-trivial. I'm ultimately going with no, and they aren't enough to pass the GNG. Bilby (talk) 06:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The subject satisfies criterion 4(b) of WP:CREATIVE, which reads "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition". The David James book does not describe every display at the LA Freewaves festival, doing so would require a book thousands of pages long... the festival is days long and covers multiple locations (even broadcasts over television). David James mentions several primary displays at the festival from that year; the primary exhibits display at the Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art, where Freewaves also holds its opening ceremonies. The Freewaves festival is one of the top festivals in the field of experimental media arts and video, the field for which Waugh is best known. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 11:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What constitutes a "substantial part of a significant exhibition"? A single work in a much larger exhibition does not seem to be substantial - 140 artists were included, all at the MOCA. If there was anything else - an interview with him somewhere, or a review of his work, or really anything in any reliable source beyond a single two sentence description of a single work I'd be with you. But there's nothing. No other significant exhibitions which included his work, no published interviews in reliable media, nothing at all. Just once, many years ago, a short video was displayed with literally hundreds of other works. There isn't even a second mention of him being there - just the two sentences in a single source. That doesn't feel like it is enough to be a "substantial part". - Bilby (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well-familiar with Freewaves. Exhibiting at the MOCA portion means he was a significant exhibitor at the festival. That's where the festival's most important exhibitions are held. The exhibitions aren't all at the MOCA, they exhibit in various other places throughout California, broadcast on TV and online. Your argument misses this point... it sounds like you're trying to apply a GNG argument regarding sources, but that's moot as CREATIVE is established. The mention in "Sons and Daughters" is among several other people at the entire festival and the book itself seems to be about street and experimental art in L.A., not just about Freewaves and certainly not exhaustive in covering all exhibitors. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is one work among 140 artists. This is a significant festival, but by no means is it shown that this is a substantial part. Substantial part requires more than a single work by an artist that's made no impact anywhere else since then. At any rate, we don't have a source saying that this work was at the MOCA, only that the LA Freewaves was held there. If the argument is that all the works were at the MOCA there's no special significance in this one. If being at the MOCA was special, then we need something independent saying that it was there. This is one of the problems with the article as it stands - a lot of claims not about Waugh, but seemingly making the subject sound more important than he perhaps is. - Bilby (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing against settled fact. The MOCA displays are the most important of the festival, which has multiple locations. The total count of exhibitors at the festival is beside the point and the fact that Waugh hasn't made any (known) impact elsewhere is also irrelevant; CREATIVE 4(b) says nothing about "making an impact elsewhere". The book chooses to mention him and a couple others out of 140 exhibitors and he exhibited at the MOCA portion, this fulfills the requirements of WP:CREATIVE 4(b). The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am very happy to accept that 20 years ago one of his videos appeared at a significant exhibition, even if none of his works appear to have done this agin. But to satisfy WP:CREATIVE, his work needs to have been a substantial part of the exhibition as well. There's no evidence that this is the case - one work among 140 other artists, is not a substantial part. The single mention of that appearance we have isn't singling out Waugh - Waugh's work is only mentioned because it was part of a bigger display which demonstrated a theme that the author was discussing. We don't even know for sure that he was a t the MOCA portion, as we don't have an independent source on that, but that wouldn't be enough.

Fundamentally, there is no sign that this single work was a substantial part of the exhibition, and no sign that he has done anything significant since then. Unless we can prove that it was a substantial part of the exhibition - and the only mention of it that we have doesn't prove this - there is no sign that he passes WP:CREATIVE, in spite of claims to the contrary. And there is nothing else, at all, to base his notability on. - Bilby (talk) 04:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"But to satisfy WP:CREATIVE, his work needs to have been a substantial part of the exhibition as well." As two people have repeatedly told you, IT WAS, and the supporting evidence has been described at length. You seem to be ignoring us so there's no point in responding further. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 15:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ignoring you. I just can't see how a single work out of 140 artists that has only been briefly mentioned by a single source can be seen as a "substantial part". You've offered two reasons for thinking that it was. One was that it was displayed at the MOCA portion. While that alone doesn't prove that it was a substantial part, we don't even know that it was the case, as we don't have a source saying that it was. The second is that being mentioned in James' book proves it was substantial. However, James only lists the work as a part of a set, and that is only listed because of a theme he is discussing. Even then, what it shows is that one person noted that the work was on display and mentioned it - not that it was a substantial part. There are no other independent sources, anywhere, that even mention the work in relation to LA Freewaves, and nothing that shows that it was a substantial part. - Bilby (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again. The MOCA portion is the most important part and displaying there means it was substantial. This isn't even debatable. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 02:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions, then.

1) How do we know that just being included at some point at the MOCA as part of this particular exhibition means that it was a substantial part, as opposed to a normal, everyday work that was part of LA Freewaves? Was he one of only 10 artists on display? Or one of 100 artists on display?

2) Do we even have a source saying that his work was at the MOCA? There is so little on this artist that we don't even know that.

I know you want to defend the article, but the point of requiring that an artist is a "substantial part" of a significant exhibition is that just being shown at an exhibition, once, in someone's career is not enough to say that we can write about them. The assumption is that if the artist was a substantial part of a significant exhibition then there must be valid material written about them so we can create the article. In this case there's no evidence he was even at the MOCA, much less that he was a substantial part. And that is why there is no material we can use to build an article, because other than self published sources there is virtually nothing on him. - Bilby (talk) 04:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bilby, I tried to explain this down below. By displaying at the MOCA portion of Freewaves, he is automatically considered a substantial part of the festival. The MOCA events are the highlight of the festival. It's significant honor to present at Freewaves and presenting at the MOCA is like being a headliner. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that we don't have a source saying that he presented at MOCA. We don't know that he was there. - Bilby (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I emailed the subject and he provided me with a link to a scan of an e-mail conversation he had with Anne Bray, who is the founder and exacutive director of Freewaves. The Email confirms he exhibited at MOCA. Since it's primary and the number of primary sources are already a problem for some folks I won't add it to the article, but it's 100% confirmed. I can drop it here if you like. EDIT: There's also a scan of the catalog for the event which lists him. Also primary. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 00:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but a scanned email from the subject is not a reliable source. - Bilby (talk) 00:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not for sourcing an article, which is why I didn't add it. But anyone can look at it and see it's not fake, nor do I believe the subject to be a liar. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a contentious point, and the only source we have is a document scanned by the subject. Does the catalog at least say how many works were at the MOCA? That might be something useful. - Bilby (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per The Master. It would be nice to have more third party sources but there's no reason to delete since he fulfills CREATIVE. Freewaves is the main experimental media arts festival in the western US. Night Ranger (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep LA Freewaves is definitely the top exhibition in Waugh's field and exhibiting at the MOCA portion definitely makes him a significant exhibitor. This fulfills WP:CREATIVE. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- not notable, non reliable sources, almost all of Jesse Waugh's art exhibitions are related to getting his MFA (later in his life). One art exhibition (such as LA Freewaves) is not enough to be considered notable. Jooojay (talk) 04:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CREATIVE 4(b) disagrees with you. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 16:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to see proof that Waugh was a substantial part of any exhibition... Jooojay (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I accept the judgement of those better informed than me as to the importance of Freewaves and the MOCA portion of it, and the Marie Claire thing, silly though it is, also shows he's getting some publicity. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article subject passes WP:CREATIVE because of criterion 4(b) which says "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition". The work at MOCA suffices there. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 11:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Actually, in addition to 4 (b), Waugh seems to fulfill Creative 4(d) as well. One of his books (his books are produced as art pieces) is in the archive of multiple art museums and galleries, including the Tate, the Thomas J. Watson library at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC, the Brooklyn Museum, and the University of Washington Libraries (click the link and type any zip code) [1]. Night Ranger (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that one is just puffery. His book is self published, and that four libraries have a copy isn't really any sort of indicator of any sort of importance. If he passes, it is on the LA Freeviews appearance. - Bilby (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline language specified by NR sounds like it adheres to what's described by him/her above. All art is self-created and if the books are artwork then they count. There are many historical examples of books produced as works of art. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is really stretching it. Using the first of those, the Metropolitan Museum of Art has 900,000+ volumes in their library. Being one of almost a million volumes is not a significant achievement, and having a book in their library is not being "represented within the permanent collection". - Bilby (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.