Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Wigdor

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.168.67.238 (talk) at 21:27, 3 March 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Keith Wigdor

Non-notable. Vanity Page. Anon author (user#24..., user#63..., Keith Wigdor) created article to promote himself. The subject article is non-notible and has created a vanity page. Delete. --Bleedy 18:40, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. With over 21,000 google hits, Keith Wigdor does seen to have some notariety. Additionally, the article and its associated talk page serve a useful purpose in keeping much of the continual juvenile petty bickering between Wigdor's admirers and detractors contained away from other articles. -- Infrogmation 19:54, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I've noted the large numbers of hits myself. However, I've struggled to find anything significant among them, that doesn't seem to be authored by Wigdor himself. (Often accompanied by abusive comments from others; similar pattern as here, really. Indeed, very likely the same others (or other) as here.) If the views of the admirers and detractors could be distilled down into something semi-encyclopaedic-looking, the article could be significantly improved. If there's no real art-crit of him, though, it does raise valid notability questions. If there is, can someone please cite it, with a view to inclusion in the article? Alai 20:13, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Keith Wigdor is notable enough to be appointed by Terrance Lindall, the executive director of The Williamsburg Art and Historical Society (art mecca in Brooklyn, New York City) and legendary artist and illustrator of countless magazine and book covers, as LEAD JUDGE for the 2nd Surrealist Film Festival held at the WAH. Since it is a FACT that the WAH Center, (a HIGHLY RESPECTED Art Institution) invited Keith Wigdor to come on down and judge a Surrealist Film Festival indicates that Wigdor certainly is NOTABLE! Also, the Founding Member of THE WEST COAST SURREALIST GROUP, Gregg Simpson, exhibited in Wigdor's virtual online event, SURREALISM 2003. Also, Wigdor was featured in CHURN ART MAGAZINE, in the same issue as the legendary H.R.GIGER and other heavies in the arts. The best selling Science Fiction Author, Greg Bear knows of Keith Wigdor, when Wigdor illustrated the winter 2001 issue of The Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, Greg has a copy of that magazine and another famous author, Paul Levinson has one of Wigdor's art prints hanging in his office. Also, Wigdor was just interviewed by the webzine, LATCHKEY, which is now online.24.168.67.238 20:29, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Bleedy, what you wrote above is not true. I did not create the article. Infrogmation created the article.24.168.67.238 19:52, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Delete. I haven't attempted to determine the notability of the subject, but after taking a look at the Talk and History pages, the VfD nominator (Bleedy) has been involved in a lengthy edit war with various users from 24.168.*, who are likely to be the same person. It looks to me like a case of "I can't have it my way, so I'm taking my ball and going home," but it's hard to say. At any rate, this dispute should be solved on the article's Talk page, not by deleting the article. Android79 21:17, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • I see your point, but in the end the previous dispute shouldn't matter in deciding whether or not this subject is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Gamaliel 18:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Perhaps you're right. I was just concerned that this VfD nomination was motivated by something else than concern over the notability of the subject. I suppose I was a bit naïve to think that the parties involved would start to play nice. After looking at the other arguments, I've decided to change my vote. Android79 20:32, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This whole article and edit war has been a total waste of time. I don't think this Wigdor even has anything to do with the art world.--Cukestroke 00:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Google gives plenty of hits but most of them are his artworks rather than anything significantly biographical in nature. His autobiographical site [1] doesn't suggest anything notable. Megan1967 03:42, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep.Simply because some people are not familar with this individual's work,does not infer that many others are not both familar with it,and have been influenced by it...I have not met Keith Wigdor in person...but I do have familiarity with his work...besides being a unique corpus of visual work,it also embodies an educated surrealistic movement that resurrects many fundamental propositions of the original surrealistic movement in the arts...it is a perspective that is refreshingly pre-Dali,yet beyond being a mere recapitulation of the past,is a voice unique to our time...I VOTE TO KEEP THE ARTICLE!gmonkai 18:22, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC).
    • Only five edits, four of which are to this discussion. Gamaliel 18:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I VOTE TO DELETE THE ARTICLE. I PREFER MY ARTENLINE PAGES. PLEASE FORGIVE ME, FOR ALL WHO HAVE SUPPORTED MY CAUSE, BUT I VOTE FOR THE DELETION OF THE ARTICLE. THANK YOU KEITH WIGDOR.--Keith-Wigdor 15:20, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The above user, "Keith-Wigdor" is an imposter. Wigdor made an official announcement to the Wikipedia Community back on Feb.20,2005 concerning this user. Please disregard the above post. I will notify an Administrator immediately about this user, "Keith-Wigdor".24.168.67.238 16:19, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Can you provide a link to where Wigdor has said that this user is an imposter? Wondering, -- Infrogmation 19:36, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Infrogmation, Wikipedia was already warned about the imposter in a public statement made by Wigdor to Wikipedia on Feb.20, 2005 at the URL http://artenligne.com/@/KeithWigdor

Scroll down the page to read the following, ". Added February 20 Dear Wikipedia, this is Keith Wigdor, Surrealist. It has come to my attention that there is an imposter using my name on your encyclopedia's website talk pages. They have created a user account and they are logging in to your site by placing a dashmark (-) between my first and last name and leaving posts while impersonating me. I am not this person posting as the user, "Keith-Wigdor". I need to inform you of this unfortunate situation and I hope that anyone in authority over at Wikipedia can prevent this person from impersonating me and harrassing your site. I do not know who to contact on your site and I felt it best to make a public statement where everyone can see in order to fix this problem. Thank you, Keith Wigdor, Surrealist Feb.20, 2005"

Wikipedia was also warned about this imposter back on the article's discussion page as well.24.168.67.238 20:15, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You probably want to go here. As far as disregarding it, there are several contributions here that I would 'weigh lightly', were I the one tallying these votes. One might also ponder the possible use of socks here; for that one would want to contact a [[Wikipedia:developers|developer]. Alai 20:08, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Chap seems non-notable to say the least, has trouble with Wikipedia, and appears to have been involved in a kerfuffle over at Surrealism, according to teh RfC page. As for having a 'unique corpus of visual work', it would be unfair to comment. -Ashley Pomeroy 18:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Currently well under my bar of notability. Some day, no doubt ... and make sure you let me know when you finally get to exhibit in SF, I'll drop by! HyperZonktalk 18:29, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No entry in the Grove Art database. No hits in any biographical database I have access to. No hits in the last ten years in Nexis. Gamaliel 18:44, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • "notable"?...what an interesting term semantically in this regard...and so many stopping by to say "seems non-notable" while extending an admission of no familiarity with the corpus of this artist's work...perhaps such controversy is "notable" in and of itself...well I have found the artist's critical explorations of nascent mental manifestations examined in a dialectical Hegelian critical light to be both interesting,unique,and yes-"notable".gmonkai 18:46, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC).
    • Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Do you wish to cast any vote to keep or delete? -- Infrogmation 19:36, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • KEEP,as cast above gmonkai.
        • Ok; explicitly stated votes are much easier to count than implied ones. :-) -- Infrogmation
    • Curious logic. The fewer people that are familar with someone's work, the harder it should be to argue they are not notable, by this line of argument? Alai 20:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
From what I read from the article subject's site is that the purpose of his work is to, "invade your mind and destroy logic". Oh, I am sorry, I should not have made this post on the VfD page since the article is going to get vaporized!24.168.67.238 20:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Much inference there,as it trajects logic about numbers of people familar with Keith Wigdor's work-which was not broached...the point was more appertinent to controversy which the works of this artist seem to attract;even by those entirely unknowledgeable regarding them;and in itself that is certainly notable...in my experience cronyism is usually not stirred against a movement unless it has perturbed people(who are perhaps threatened by it)...and in itself this is certainly notable.gmonkai.

How do we know that people who are trying to VOTE to either Delete or Keep are not being blocked and cannot get in? We need to know if this process is immune to corruption! Are people's VOTES being registered? Have here been people who were trying to VOTE but cannot get in?24.168.67.238 20:46, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Uh, what the heck are you talking about? The page history is visible to anyone who cares to check it. Do you have any reason to suggest some problem with any logged in user being unable to vote? Wondering, -- Infrogmation 20:53, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Absolutely...I am here in Austin,TX...I know for a fact that in the last twenty minutes,a Swede and new member has attempted to vote KEEP three times,and has found it impossible to keep his edit...user name Placeboism...gmonkai.
      • Keep in mind that new users' votes don't really count for much. This might seem unfair, but you have to consider the problem of sock puppets. Android79 21:07, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
      • There are no edits for a User:Placeboism. I believe if an ip# someone is using is effected by a block (which should only occur if someone from that ip# was blocked for vandalism or similar offenses; see Wikipedia:Blocking policy ) they should get a block message. I'm a sysop here, and I'm unaware of any mechanism existing that would block anyone from voting or editing any unprotected article unless they are completely blocked. The list of blocked IP addresses and usernames can be seen at Special:Ipblocklist. Any glitch should be seen at more places than just this VFD subpage. Is there any indication that users are having a problem logging in at present? -- Infrogmation 21:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
OH MY GOD! This VfD is corrupt! Gmonkia, are you telling us that there has been someone who has been trying to VOTE and cannot get in!!! This VfD is NOT WORKING!!! It is corrupt! If there is a, "Placeboism" and if this party is being blocked from Voting then this VfD is corrupted!!!! After all, they allowed an imposter to case a vote! This is not fair!24.168.67.238 21:10, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Android79, if a new user is not a, "sock puppet" then they have the same rights as anyone, correct?24.168.67.238 21:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
People have the right to Vote! If a NEW USER comes in here to VOTE and they are not a, "sock puppet" then they can VOTE! OH MY GOD!!!!! Are we being told that VOTES ARE BEING TURNED AWAY???!!!!24.168.67.238 21:14, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • In these cases-as the geography is vastly diverse...it should not be an issue...one vote to one person is only fair...regarding sockpuppets,what protects againt longtime users not using the exact same ruse...their should be no such distinctions.gmonkai.
    • Sounds to me that you are pretty savvy on this sock puppet stuff Android...following your link was the first I have learned of this issue.gmonkai.
Gmonkai, I think this VOTE for Deletion page goes on for another four days. I recommend that you tell this user, Placeboism, to keep trying or if they are having any problems to contact Infrogmation! WE MUST MAKE SURE VOTES ARE COUNTED, either way! However, I think that this is VfD is still corrupt because NOTHING was done to address the imposter issue. Gmonkai, if this user, Placeboism, has already signed up and really has been trying to VOTE (like you said) and if his VOTE is NOT BEING REGISTERED then this WHOLE VfD must be stopped until an INVESTIGATION is under way. For the benefit of justice, integrity and the entire process.24.168.67.238 21:25, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Keith_Wigdor&oldid=10742223"