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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Giecek[edit]

Ed Giecek (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)

Non-notability banner has been present for five years. Article sources mainly primary, subject appears to fail WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; only one is allowed. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, his work is exhibited in the Frye Art Museum. Despite the lack of other sources, which I suspect would be found if actually searched for, this indicates notability in and of itself. Museums don't display works by non-notable artists. Skyerise (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability for Wikipedia purposes isn't established based on whether or not museums display their work. Have you read WP:GNG, Skyerise? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - responders should note that WV (Winkelvi) is gutting the article, removing what in my opinion are reliable sources, to ensure deletion of the article. This is bad form. Those who respond to the AfD should be relied upon to look into the references and decide for themselves how reliable they are. Skyerise (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. I've removed unreferenced content, moved links that weren't reliable references to the external links section, removed dead links, etc. It's all in the editing history and there is no "bad form" occurring. This is a nothing article about a non-notable subject, period. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you've repeatedly undone my adding details to citations and formatting them with the ((cite)) template. You've also repeatedly removed the sentence noting an award, which is relevant to notability and supported by a reference: "Giecek's work Near Spring won first prize at the twenty-eight annual Puget Sound Area Exhibition at Seattle's Frye Art Museum." [1]. The program cover is not "forged" and is supported by the work's inclusion Musuem catalogue. Sheesh! Skyerise (talk) 04:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Skyerise and Winkelvi, hopefully your battle at the article has ended. If it continues, and I see it, either or both of you may be blocked. @Winkelvi, a polite suggestion: leave the article alone, whether it has unsourced material or poorly sourced material in it. Editors who evaluate the notability of the subject can easily see what is sourced and what isn't and how. You're also free to comment here on the sources rather than deleting material from the article. The article is short; it's not that hard to go through. That said, @Skyerise, edit-warring is not justified, even if you think that what Winkelvi is doing is in "bad form". Now, why don't the two of you sit back, relax, and let other editors opine on whether the article should be kept or deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem to take your advice, Bbb23, and thank you for it being polite. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It seems that this artist has, as a claim to notability, the following:
  1. One watercolor from 1986 displayed in a museum in Seattle.
  2. A membership card in an artists' group.

If that's all there is, I can't justify keeping it. Is there more that I missed? J♯m (talk | contribs) 06:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete: does not appear to meet the threshold for notability as an artist. Quis separabit? 12:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy to allow the primary contributor (or keeper) to work on the article and bring it up to Wikipedia standards. If it can't be salvaged (or merged to another article) within six months, delete from user space. Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which will be pretty much impossible to do, Viriditas. The article subject simply has nothing "out there" in form of secondary sources. Other than what's already in the article, there's nothing but primary. I've looked at his artwork online, read his bio. I like what he does artistically, and he looks like a great guy, but he's just not notable for Wikipedia purposes. As another editor pointed out above, the article subject has one watercolor from 1986 displayed in a museum in Seattle and a membership card in an artists' group. Truth is, there are a lot of great artists currently in the world, but relatively, only a handful of them are eligible according to our guidelines and policies on notability. The article subject doesn't fall into that handful. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That could change. Many sources are not yet digitized, and can only be found in archival boxes collecting dust in remote physical locations. It's still difficult to find digital sources for many topics, such as regional artists. There may be reliable source coverage out there, but the editor will need to do some major research and dig around. Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with Skyerise. Notability is supported by the reference: "Giecek's work Near Spring won first prize at the twenty-eight annual Puget Sound Area Exhibition at Seattle's Frye Art Museum." [2]. Seattle is a huge metropolitan area, and a first place there at the Puget Sound exhibition in and of itself denotes notability. WordSeventeen (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He won nearly 30 years ago. Anything more recent from a non-primary source? No. If he was truly notable per Wikipedia standards, there would be more to his career than one prize 29 years ago and finding anything on him in anything but primary sources/his daughter's website/blog. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First place is first place. There is no statute of limitations on a first place win AFAIK just sayin... WordSeventeen (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But there are notability guidelines in Wikipedia and one prize 29 years ago with virtually no sources other than self-published and unreliable do not meet those guidelines. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which wikipedia guideline states a first prize in a huge art exhibition 29 years ago does not count? Like I said, "Notability is supported by the reference: "Giecek's work Near Spring won first prize at the twenty-eight annual Puget Sound Area Exhibition at Seattle's Frye Art Museum." [3]. Seattle is a huge metropolitan area, and a first place there at the Puget Sound exhibition in and of itself denotes notability. " I stand by my vote. Have a nice evening! WordSeventeen (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the size of Seattle's population has nothing to do with notability. Secondly, winning one prize 30 years ago and nothing since says it all. No, there's no guideline that states winning one prize 30 years ago does not denote notability to an individual. But it's easy to see that using common sense in view of the facts presented here leading one to logically conclude no notability is really the only guideline necessary in answer to your pointy question and effort. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The Keep voters seem a little fuzzy on Wikipedia guidelines concerning notability. None of those guidelines say "A subject is notable if you think he ought to be." They set black-letter standards. Other than the GNG (which Giecek doesn't meet), WP:CREATIVE is the one at stake here. It says, explicitly, "The person's work (or works) 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 or museums." (emphasis mine) One picture in one regional museum doesn't cut it, not remotely close. Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not seeing evidence that this person satisfies the criteria of WP:CREATIVE. (As an aside, a work's presence in a museum's collection does not mean that the work is "displayed" or "exhibited" at the museum, as the article and some of the commenters above claim.) Deor (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Here are the sources in the article:
  1. "Program cover from the Frye Museum". Frye Art Museum. June 1986. Retrieved March 14, 2015.
  2. "List of Awards and Exhibitions". EdGiecek.com. Archived from the original on 2012-03-05.
  3. "Collection List". FryeMuesuem.org. Frye Art Museum. Retrieved March 14, 2015.
  4. "Member Links". Pennsylvania Watercolor Society. Retrieved March 14, 2015.
  5. "Ed Giecek interview". art.net. Retrieved 27 March 2015.
  6. "Artist Trading Cards: Ed Giecek, USA". Artist-Trading-Cards.ch. Retrieved March 14, 2015.
  7. "Mail Art Periodicals: An Annotated Inventory". MOMA.org. The Museum of Modern Art Library. Retrieved March 14, 2015.
  8. Janssen, Ruud. "Mail Art Works". IUOMA.org. The International Union Of Mail Artists. Retrieved March 14, 2015.
  9. Jones, Rick (2001). "Ed Giecek Interview". Art.net. Retrieved March 14, 2015.
  None of these are independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the subject.

  Cunard (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the lack of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. I searched for reliable sources and did not find any.

  The subject fails Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  I agree with Nha Trang's and Deor's comments about how WP:CREATIVE is not met.

  Cunard (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the single award is pretty much WP:ONEEVENT. There isn't the depth of coverage that I'd expect to see if Giecek was a leading notable artist. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:59, 11 April 2015 (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.