Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stev´nn Hall

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. Some sources were presented, but they didn't convince the other reviewers that WP:N was established. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stev´nn Hall[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

There are certainly sources but I do not believe that they are of sufficient quality to establish notability for a visual artist. There is nothing in the article that suggests that he passes WP:Artist either. Nor does a search throw up anything, other than evidence t TheLongTone (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. freshacconci (✉) 18:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only source that is of any use for notability is the Globe and Mail review, and that's just a short review amongst several others. Perhaps the creators.vice.com link is useful, but I can't personally verify that. The Thomas Waugh essay (google books link here) only mentions him in a screen grab and caption. The article's claim that his "satyrical short film 'Bondage Television' deserved broad commentary by the film writer Thomas Waugh in the context of masculine sexual orientation" is not backed up by the cited text itself (nor does it make much sense as a sentence -- Hall's short film deserved more "broad commentary" by "the film writer Thomas Waugh"? Or is Waugh claiming it deserves more broad commentary in general?) Either way, it doesn't seem to appear in the cited text and cannot be verified. If the original author of this Wikipedia article is making some sort of claim about what Waugh has or has not done as a scholar on behalf of Hall, that would be original research and a POV issue. Further searching turns up very little, a few mentions that only confirm Hall as an artist, but nothing that supports WP:GNG (or WP:ARTIST for that matter). freshacconci (✉) 18:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Globe article is good, but it's not enough. Lacks RS to establish GNG.96.127.242.226 (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is far too dependent on blogs and primary sources, and not nearly enough on reliable sources, to deem him notable — but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be sourced much better than this. As always, no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Can't find any evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This source extensively talks about the artist and the artworks. The translated title is: "The photographer Stev'nn Hall portrayed the painful relationship between the conscious and the unconscious." The article writes "The mixed media artist from Toronto, Canada, Stev'nn Hall, in his series 'Against Himself' makes an atypical approach to how we relate to ourselves. It is extremely difficult to put forward the feelings we repress every day in contrast to the face we show to people close to us. However, it is not possible to deny that those feelings, impulses and intentions are there, present, all the time" and "In what seems to be an exercise in bringing the unconscious to the front, the series shows portraits of different individuals a difficult facet to play. Naked, humiliated, hanged and so on, individuals attack themselves in different ways, questioning what these signs of power made to oneself could mean." (The machine translation is not great, but I think the meaning is decipherable.) The article goes on to say in translation "On the one hand, they could refer to the unconscious impulses that we seek to tame. However, on the other side, it seems that Hall's photographs and montages speak about the complex relationship that the mind has with the body. The physical instances that compel us to put ourselves at the greatest possible risk, feel adrenaline, activate it, being pampered by a physical instantiation that stops us" and "The photographs give free rein to our relationship with our body, our mind and what we love and hate about ourselves. You can see more, below." That last reference is to the ten photographs of the artist's work that are included in this review. Definitely a substantial review. I believe the source is Vice Media. Bus stop (talk) 12:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this extensive review addresses Hall as an artist, especially the dissimilarity as well as the connections between the two styles of work he has produced—photographs of people and photographs of landscapes/seascapes. I think this is a serious review that attempts to probe the significance of the output of the artist. Bus stop (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've added, as an external link, this 2011 interview with Stevnn' Hall which I think is worth everyone's 33 minutes. The seriousness of the artist is apparent and it is informative of the artist's concerns. Bus stop (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator On (3:00 AM/July 19, 2018) I edited the article adding hopefully more comprehensive references and making a few text changes in an attempt to address some of the above comments. Thanks to all intervening participants for their contribution.
Further note to closing administrator On (5:00 PM/July 20, 2018) I edited the article again, making various fixes in attention the above discussion, hoping to improve the article and its chances to be kept. Thank you. Neuralia (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment he is not listed in the CHIN (Canadian Heritage Information Network) list of "Artists in Canada", which is a pretty easy way of determining ballpark notability, by seeing if any of the contributing "Twenty-three libraries and art galleries" across Canada have a file on him. If 23 libraries and galleries do not see him as notable enough to start a file, I am not sure why we should. They do have 42,700 other artists listed.96.127.242.226 (talk) 02:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I am not sure why we should" I think we should. Sources take the artist seriously. Recognition is accorded the artist in the sources available to us. The author, RM Vaughn, focusses on three reviews in this source. The first of the three is that of Stev´nn Hall, and the headline derives from the work of Stev´nn Hall, reading "Electric skyscapes are a kick in the head". That is a reference to the two different styles in which the artist works. This is mentioned in the body of the review. One style involves human figures, in aggressive poses. The other involves landscapes, in which are sometimes found fiery skies. This is not a superficial review. It touches upon not only the significance of the work but the techniques used to bring the work about. This alone could establish notability. This source importantly includes what look to me as ten good quality photographs to represent some of the photographer's work. It characterizes him as a mixed media artist, something our article should mention. Vice Media, the publisher of this review, is a well-regarded source. This is a well-written and thoughtful review. Though not easily quantifiable, that is something we should be looking for, to establish notability. Bus stop (talk) 02:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are just repeating everything you already said in an earlier comment. Please avoid using repetition and walls of text to bludgeon the discussion. 96.127.242.226 (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But you do notice that Vice Media, which is a good-quality source, includes ten images of this artist's work in this review. Can you dismiss that as simply not sufficient for establishing notability? In my opinion notability is amply satisfied in the instance of this artist. Please tell me your thoughts on this. Bus stop (talk) 11:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing that shows he meets WP:Artist. There are no reviews of exhibitions or gallery openings etc; art blogs may like using the pretty pictures, but noone important seems to have taken notice of him yet. Curdle (talk) 07:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Curdle—this would be a review of an art gallery exhibition. Bus stop (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Cannot locate significant evidence of Wikinotability. On an altogether different issue, I agree with some commentary above insinuating subject's artistic merit. -The Gnome (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The artist has won significant critical attention. Both of the sources that I've commented upon at length constitute "significant critical attention". Could the attention be more significant? Of course. But the above is adequate to establish that this is a serious artist working long-term in a well-defined area who has garnered a modicum of recognition. Wikipedia has standards of notability but when they are met you can't keep demanding more. Our standard should not be understood to only include only stodgy well-accepted artists but also those whose careers are relatively new. When an artist's name is the key factor that makes the artwork good, that artist is already a has-been. On the other hand the artist whose work alone is the key to whatever meager degree of success they have achieved, and whose name is unknown—that would be my idea of a "non-stodgy" artist. We have ample indication in sources that the work of this artist is beginning to open up doors. Both of the above sources are prominent reviews of this emerging artist's work. Our notability standards are not specific as to what degree of prominence is adequate but we can use common sense. On a separate note I can't tell what you are referring to by "some commentary above insinuating subject's artistic merit. What is that a reference to? Do you mean on the part of sources or on the part of editors? Bus stop (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject's artistic merit has been insinuated by editors. Namely, you. You see, I may agree that some subject is notable in real life, but this does not mean I automatically believe the subject is also Wikinotable. This encyclopaedia has its own rules. Within which, verifiability through the testimony of reliable sources is a paramount one. And since Wikipedia accepts sources rather than personal testimony, and established sources more than non-established ones, it figures that Wikipedia would be perforce slanted towards more "stodgy well-accepted artists" and fewer artists "whose careers are relatively new." So, Wikipedia will never be the encyclopaedia of (or even a guide for) the Avant-Guarde. I have fully accepted this state of affairs; and you should too, I think, for the sake of your peace of mind. -The Gnome (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I normally welcome chinwags between editors, Bus stop. What I want to avoid, with all due respect, is another waterfall of impassioned and obliterating biblical thunder like the one you unleashed last time. So, I'm engaging here very, very carefully. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) Please tell me or show me where I have insinuated the subject's artistic merit, The Gnome. Bus stop (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS—of course, I have not, The Gnome. Bus stop (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2018 (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.