Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Moore (artist)

:{{la|Harry Moore (artist)}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harry_Moore_(artist) Stats])

:({{Find sources|Harry Moore (artist)}})

Lacks reliable, independent, secondary sources WP:PEOPLE and sources in the article support notability only in Cork, Ireland. I am One of Many (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - I sympathise with the author who points out visual artists are under-represented on Wikipedia. However, this article currently stands as more of a CV for Moore, cited to primary sources with a clear vested interest in promoting him on their websites. There is what appears to be a magazine review of Moore's joint exhibition in Cobh (where he is also gallery director) but no indication of the source. We need proof Moore and/or his work are widely known and I can't find anything convincing online. Sionk (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - Disclosure: I am the primary author of the article and have met and worked with Moore, since we are fellow sound artists. I understand the objections to this entry. However, it is unrealistic to expect any artist working in an experimental or fringe field to have acknowledged third-party articles extant. It is quite simply the fact that no press exists that covers these activities. So this policy in essence says that only artists working in populist forms and genres should be represented in Wikipedia. It turns the encyclopedia into a popularity contest. I disagree with this on principle. And as a lifelong supporter of regionalism, I do not think that artists should have to flock to the major cities of the world to have their contributions validated. If Moore's visual art was not worthwhile it would not be in private and public collections. If his sonic art was not valid then he would not be sought after as a collaboration partner. But I agree the entry needs to be tied to other artists. That's easy to do... except that all those other artists could have the same objections levelled at their entries! Where is the incentive to write half a dozen other entries knowing they all could be deleted? Robin726 (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

::I very much sympathize with the points you make, but objectively, how are editors to judge when a relatively unrecognized artist is doing profound work without secondary sources? Notability forces us to leave out, for now, people who will one day become recognized as innovators. This is true for many fields. If we started allowing entries for everyone with some potential in some area, Wikipedia would no longer be an encyclopedia. Keep in mind that it might not be the right time for an article on Harry Moore. Maybe in a year or more there will be an objective basis for notability. Again, none of this has anything to do with the quality of his work. I really want you to continue writing articles. One idea is to write articles on the artistic movements themselves. There is likely to be much more source material and you can point to many artists. In time, individual artists within a movement may gain sufficient notability to justify their own articles.--I am One of Many (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Provisional delete. I am One hits the nail on the head. The chief requirement of Wikipedia is that there should be sufficient independent reliable sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC).
• Delete. I did find [http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-24810222.html this brief story] in the Irish Times, but unfortunately it's only an exhibit announcement, not a review. It is not true that sources on contemporary artists don't exist (newspaper reviews of art exhibits are common enough, and there are any number of more specialized magazines that can be used as sources) and it is not Wikipedia's responsibility to make up for gaps in their coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. I could only find [http://www.zoominfo.com/#!search/profile/person?personId=1329050097&targetid=profile directory information]. The citation list consists entirely of non-WP:RS web-pages and it appears there's not much more out there. There are similar concerns for The Quiet Club, to which this article links. Agricola44 (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC).
• Delete per Sionk, unfortunately this artist does not meet the notability guidelines at this time. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

: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.