Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johannes Grenzfurthner (2nd nomination)

:{{la|Johannes_Grenzfurthner}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Johannes Grenzfurthner}})

no notabilty, referenced with personal pages. appears to be artist spam / arts administrator spam. art professor who edits articles is not notable. neither boingboing or imdb are RS. listing references from 'monochrom' is self-promotional and not RS since article subject is the monochrom founder --self-publishing. 'DIY' means 'do it yourself' so organizing a prominent DIY thing is not notable. webby award isn't notable per se. this is an just extended CV seemingly mostly created by the article subject with nothing more notable going on than with any other college art teacher. Cramyourspam (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

This is Johannes Grenzwhatever. Just wanted to mention that I'm not writing my own entry. The entry would be better if I did.

But I find it fascinating that just a couple of days after I first give an interview about my new project/essay "W for Vendetta" (a criticism of the power structure and elitist gamology of Wikipedia) my entry suddenly gets a notability inquiry and a deletion procedure. Paranoid? I guess I made a good point. ;-) Grenz (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

:i'm not familiar with your presentation/s about wikipedia being an elitist cabal or whatever. if there is such a structure, i'm not part of it. i think the article deserves deletion simply and only because by wikipedia standards, you're not notable. Cramyourspam (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

keep: added some stuff to the page some time ago but could give it another shot. a google search for jg and his projects brings up a ton of references. question: why is diy culture (as a cultural phenomenon (make magazine, maker faire, hackerspaces) not notable? bizarre! Stabilo (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete - and re above "question: why is diy culture (as a cultural phenomenon (make magazine, maker faire, hackerspaces) not notable? bizarre!" um. res ipsa! and if you're asking that question seriously, you have no business voting here. WP:RS does not include self-published material. no blogs. no magazines you write yourself. no making events yourself and then writing about them yourself. you and JG and his socks need to find some real reliable sources to establish notability or let this article go where it deserves to go: the dustbin.Cramyourspam (talk) 02:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep: Johannes is one of the most prolific social satirist / commentator / artists alive today. To argue that he's not notable because he creates things is idiotic - every event is created by someone at some point and Johannes has a long standing history of creating events that resonate with people and become their own thing - The annual cocktail robotics festival "Roboexotica" in Vienna has been happening annually for over 10 years, attracts thousands of people from around the world and receives national art funding, at this very moment the front page of Re/Search Publicationshttp://researchpubs.com/ features a book, one of three now, that they've published about Johannes' ongoing "Arse Elektronika" conference. The live theater comedy series about the ISS that he directed ran in Berlin last year to sold out audiences every night. To suggest the person responsible for these has "no notability" is laughable, but the same person is saying that BoingBoing, ranked by Alexahttp://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/boingboing.net# as being in the top 2,500 sites in the world, and top 1,500 in the US, isn't RS, so that res ipsa. People with blatant axes to grind are part of the reason I've stopped being so active on Wikipedia in the last few years, totally depressing. Seanbonner (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

'Keep: Johannes Grenzfurthner is a well-known artist and culture jammer. Re: Boing Boing. He created campaigns and commissioned projects for BB, e.g. the acclaimed Cheetos Campaignhttp://adage.com/article/madisonvine-news/frito-lay-puts-cheetos-brand-bloggers-hands/134558/, Firewall (with the Billboard Liberation Front)http://www.billboardliberation.com/2008/05/15/blf-erects-great-firewall-of-china-at-google/ or the Kiki and Bubu video series, that were later presented at the Venice Biennial (Future Pass, 2011)http://universes-in-universe.org/eng/bien/venice_biennale/2011/tour/future_pass_2/angelo_volpe_monochrom 212.95.7.79 (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 22. Snotbot  t • c »  15:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep: I added a few links to university talks and book publications. How someone can do a Ted talk, have multiple book publications and hold a university position and still some Wikipedia editor wants to delete them baffles me. Seems totally notable to me, according to Wikipedia's standards. And, as a professional artist, I have to confirm that Grenzfurthner is very influential and widely respected in the art world. To delete his article would only demonstrate Wikipedia's lack of knowledge about contemporary art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.173.225 (talk) 08:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Also, I added pages from university websites about his professor positions, which supports notability for WP:ACADEMIC.

Keep: Johannes Grenzfurthner is one of Europe's leading media artists. I recommend that the article should be rewritten somehow, if it looks like spam. Franz Ablinger, University of applied arts, Vienna.

Keep: This baffles me that this is even an issue. Johannes has done more in the world of contemporary and performance art, satire and media theory than most people could dream of accomplishing. Johannes has produced a plethora of events and media publications over the years that have certainly attracted more than a modicum of media attention. Roboexotica, Arse Elektronica, the Soviet Unterzögersdorf video games, Kiki and Bubu are all productions that have been covered by the press and could easily merit their own wikipedia entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekai (talk • contribs) 19:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

References: {{reflist}}

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Relisting comment: I am relisting this discussion because nearly all of the keep !votes are WP:ILIKEIT !votes and are completely unsupported by policy. Also please note that Wikipedia is not a democracy and mass keep !votes are simply ineffective.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 05:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

---

• Keep - numerous good sources; Grenzfurthner is an academic working on/writing about culture, as well as a performer working in it, and both aspects are suitably cited here. Article is not promotional but reports the (interesting) facts neutrally. He is evidently very well known both as a performer and as a writer. On the 'about' side, there are some scholarly books that cite him; on the 'in' side, we have the problem that many (most) of the sources are by definition outside WP's rules (online magazines, pop-culture blogs) even when in fact they are independent, secondary and generally reliable. However some of the magazines I looked at seem quite measured and sensible in their tone and appear to be reputable in their field. To sum up: very many sources; plenty of independent, secondary comment; some traditional academic citation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep -- I guess I am one of the editors accused of being "a sock puppet." No, I'm just a fan of monochrom's work and keep updating their WP pages on an (in)frequent basis. Grenzfurthner's article cites well-known newspapers from different countries (Libération, Toronto Star, Der Standard) and notable magazines or online versions of magazines (Wired, Brand Eins, Owni, Neural). [BTW: If I were a sock puppet I would be [http://www.activityvillage.co.uk/sock_puppet_dragon_3.jpg this one] and I would totally date [http://www.monochrom.at/kiki-and-bubu/ Bubu].] K-pachs (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – Everybody Most people voting here seem to be in one way or other related to the subject. The same may apply to many of the sources used. What I would really like to see is a printed source i.e. use of a reference template with a pages=xxx page number. I did a search on Google news archives and found two or three mentions, but noting that would discus the topic in any detail. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Question What makes you think that User:Ekai and User:Chiswick Chap are related to the subject? -- Hoary (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Gee! I love it when I am challenged. User:Chiswick Chap seems to have gone through the references and has no connection. User:Ekai is connected in the way the both he and Johannes Grenzfurthner have each other in their Google+ circles. (This does not really mean much, as they have 800 and 400 similar connections respectively.) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Question. This is "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johannes Grenzfurthner (2nd nomination)". Where is "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johannes Grenzfurthner"? (If nowhere, then why is this the "2nd nomination"?) -- Hoary (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Keep -- Moderate investigation of material found through [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Johannes+Grenzfurthner%22 Google Scholar] and [https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=%22Johannes+Grenzfurthner%22 Google Books] establishes WP:CREATIVE not WP:ACADEMIC. Cursory examination of citations and content reveals subject has not done any one thing that established Notability by itself under other criteria. However, subject's work over the past decade as referenced by in Scholar/Books links along with the subject's (apparently permanent?) exhibition in the Museumsquartier meets WP:CREATIVE 1 and 3. Establishing Notability is further confounded by the fact the subject's notable works are typically primarily referenced in German language WP:RS, while most of the subject's published works appear to be in English or in German/English hybrid form. The language barrier of WP:RS is not a bar to Notability (as explicitly stated in WP:GNG). Further confounding Notability is that the article fails to address things repeatedly covered by Books/Scholar on top of the fact the subject is prolific self-publisher and (and apparently shameless) self-promoter lending validity to WP:SPS and WP:LIKE.--Nickfarr (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• The question still remains, is there anything about the subject that could not better be covered in the article monochrom? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• To directly answer your question: I don't know. It appears that monochrom does a better job of framing the some of the subject's work, which simply suggests this article needs improvement. Perhaps including more content from the German articles putting the differences between the subject and his art group would improve the article? But in any case, would that somehow discount WP:CREATIVE if the subject's entire work is simply monochrom?--Nickfarr (talk) 05:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Merging would imply that he is only known for founding monochrom, which is not the case. He is an author writing about and reflecting on culture, technology and politics, and that is not necessarily part of his job at monochrom. In his German interviews he talks about his thoughts on being the "frontman" of a group, and how that impacts his work that is not labelled monochrom. K-pachs (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2012 (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.