Jump to content

User talk:Daniel C. Boyer/undelete

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unless I am wrong, current decision over the issue of keep this page or not, is *not* a consensual decision. It is just status quo.

Many people spent hours discussing the matter, and for the sake of efficiency at least, a real decision should be taken. And a status quo is hardly a decision here.

Consensus seeks not to satisfy everyone; but rather to be aggreeable to the majority. Right now, looking at the results of previous vote, and the amount of discussion, it is clear to me that a status quo is definitly not the solution agreeable to the majority. It is certainly more a solution aggreable to those in favor of keeping the article. Which is different. In short the status quo is here totally in favor of one side, and totally neglecting the wish/needs of the other side. As such, not acceptable as a consensus.

There are several points that have been mixed in this case, and I think they should be separated. For example, the fact the article has been written by Daniel or not by Daniel is a different problem than the fact the article is about someone not very famous. The author of the article is another problem which should be solved independently.

It appears to me that the majority of people here would agree that Daniel is not very famous.

The only point which seems really important to solve here concerns this : Do we accept biographies of little known or unknown people on Wikipedia ?

Pros will say "we have room, so why not ?"

Cons will say "we have a standard of quality to ensure. If we accept biographies of anyone, it is detrimental to the image of seriousness and professionalism of the encyclopedia"

Right now, the position of half of the people who expressed themselves is just forgotten. This is not consensus, and discussion about that topic is likely to come over and over as long a real solution is ñot found.

There have been some good propositions made above (Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies). Along these criteria, it appears Daniel page should not be here. I believe the previous opinion voting proposition was not tight enough. I would like to propose another voting scheme. Comments ? User:Anthere 6 sept

I think you make a wide variety of important points, especially in regards to the status quo not being the result of consensus, any more than deletion would be. One thing you may consider is refactoring this talk page into sub-pages for /content, /delete, /vote, etc: compare with what I did on AIDS Kills Fags Dead, for example. If you want to give it a go, I'll try to lend a hand... Martin
I thank you Martin. It is a very good idea, I will try to start with. Anthère 7 sept

Quick history of the page

[edit]

In March 2002, a very short article was created for Daniel Boyer. Daniel Boyer is a wikipedian editor, as well as a surrealist artist. The article was very quickly redirected (apparently at least by Stephen Gilber) to Daniel user page. It must be noted that a page for Daniel Boyer was created at the same time on meta, and was a redirect to the article page.

In Spring 2003, Tim Starling boldly created a longer article about Daniel, which Daniel expanded. Daniel also created article pages about himself and his work on at least two other wikipedias (see Talk:Daniel C Boyer/On other wikipedias).

In Spring 2003, Daniel also created a high number of articles about his works, many redirects from different spellings to his name, and added links to the article page in several articles (e.g. years in film). These articles were listed on votes for deletion in april 2003 (see Talk:Daniel C. Boyer/Archive). Strong opposition was voiced, widely considered to be a blatant case of self-promotion. The case was also discussed on vandalism in progress.
An agreement was reached over these articles. References in other articles were removed. Redirects were deleted, and the content of some of the articles merged with Daniel article page. (This merging was the main cause of the radical expansion of the Daniel C. Boyer article.) Others were kept.

In july 2003, Daniel Boyer main article was also listed on votes for deletion. Were mentionned the fact it was promotional, auto-biographic and that the topic did not deserve inclusion in the encyclopedia (i.e. Daniel Boyer not being famous enough). Lengthy discussions occured throughout summer, and three policy suggestions were made (see Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies, Wikipedia:Auto-biography, Wikipedia:Verification).

On the 30th of july, a non binding vote took place, which proposed, either "deletion" or "deletion or severe rewrite" or "keep". After approximatively 10 days of voting (no deadline apparent), the outcome of the vote was unclear, and no decision has been taken about the page (see Talk:Daniel C. Boyer/Archive 5). The article stayed in the encyclopedic space.

During summer a discussion over the proportionality of coverage of an non-famous versus famous artist took place (see Talk:Daniel C. Boyer/Article size proportional to fame). The article was edited for accuracy and "coverage proportionality" throughout August by several editors (see Talk:Daniel C. Boyer/Discussion over the content).

On the 7th of September, the page was moved to the user space (as a User:Daniel sub page) as a temp. The page on meta still redirects to the encyclopedic article.

Quick references

[edit]

Earlier discussions

[edit]

Discussion over auto-biography and self promotion

Rework of the article as regard accuracy and representativity

Issues over relevance of inclusion in encyclopedia

Arguments and options proposed for Daniel Boyer article

Decision attempt

Discussion of policy issues

[edit]

Broader policy issues are being discussed at:

Core of the disagreement over the page

[edit]

A disagreement occured over the inclusion of Daniel Boyer article page in the article, as well as the inclusion of several of his works, the existence of several redirects for different spelling of his name, and the rather extensive linking to other encyclopedic pages.

The issue of the extensive linking, multiple redirects and separate articles for his works was rather quickly settled, with general agreement that it was disproportionate to the fame of the artist.

These articles inspired strong reactions, with many claiming abusive use of the encyclopedia for self-promotion.

The issue over the article page is not settled though.

Arguments given over the page deletion are related to self-promotion issues, auto-biographic issues and relevance for inclusion in the encyclopedic space. Only when relevance issues are settled, could options such as moving pages, redirect and such be decided.

Auto-biography and self-promotion

[edit]

Though the case is not entirely clear, it seems Daniel Boyer is not the primary author of this article, but has created many articles about him, later secured in the central article.

Most editors mention their strong regret at seing Wikipedia used as a promotion media, and did not appreciate Daniel creating articles about himself (disputed) or his works. Consequently, a moratorium over self-articles has been decided and some rules suggested in Wikipedia:Auto-biography.

However, it should be mentionned that the fact the article was (or was not) written by Daniel Boyer appears irrelevant as regards its relevance in the encyclopedic article. Pov text was rewritten by other editors.

Once again, I would like to ask, what was the POV text "rewritten by other editors"? --Daniel C. Boyer 00:11, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Facts were checked for accuracy by other editors.
But no rules existed against auto-biography then (hence this is not being a valid argument to delete the article). However, the fact of writing about self is seen by some as a "social faux pas", ultimately as a banning case argument.

In short, the fact an article is auto-biographical is not an argument against the article, but against his author.

Discussion of suitability for inclusion in the main namespace

[edit]

Summary of current consensus

[edit]
  1. verifiability is, in some form, an applicable test. Details TBD. Some are additionally concerned about long-term verifiability. However, many feel that verifiability is not sufficient.
  2. There should not be separate articles for each work
  3. Other criteria have been suggested, including expandability and relevance

Leaving aside the many issues that have been discussed and resolved, and at the risk of painting with too broad a brush, there are essentially three POVs represented here, with regards to relevance as a criterion, with regards to this subject:

  1. Relevance is not a useful criterion for inclusion, because a) it is subjective, b) it changes rapidly, c) there is a substantial grey area ,d) it would set the bar too high, hindering breadth of knowledge, e) the best way of fixing concerns over relevance is to add content of your own, not to delete someone else's.
  1. The bar for relevance is set low and this article is over the bar, because a) Boyer has a fan outside the US; b) He has contributed to Surrealist Subversions which, though obscure in its own right (Amazon sales rank 791,273), is a widely marketed book; c) he may pass the 1,000 person test because that many people may have seen his exhibits; d) he and his work appear on web sites and usenet; e) his solo work, though not published in quantity, nonetheless indicates a degree of public presence; and f) other articles exist in Wikipedia on persons and subjects more obscure than Boyer. Some adherents of this POV qualify their support for the article by stating that it should be brief.
  2. Relevance is an important criterion for inclusion of articles, and one that this article does not meet, because a) that a great many people are arguably as important as Boyer and it is impractial to have articles on all of them, and listing only some is not balanced; b) presence of any topic in an encylopedic work implies relevance, therefore listing irrelevant topics detracts from the quality of the work; c) other articles describing people or subjects of similar importance have been deleted; d) the project may appear biased or narcisistic by including biographies of contributors; e) The subject performs relatively poorly in the google test
Google Test
[edit]

While not taking any issue with 2) e) and while making note here of my observations elsewhere in Wikipedia of the limitations of this test, I think we should try better to nail down what qualifies as "well" or "poorly" in this test. This is perhaps not the place to discuss it, as it could be better discussed on a page more general in scope. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing discussion

[edit]

Martin feels the three POVs are distinguished primarilly by views on the relevance of relevance.

Kat suggests that, based on the summary above and content now archived, that position #3 is the most widely held, and #1 is least widely held.

Somewhere in the archives I have phrased that position as "verifiable, and placed in wikipedia according to it's relevance", i.e. with a rather short article, not linked on key pages like Surrealism; the then addition reputation-by-inclusion-in-an-encycopedia is small enough to allow such articles in the encyclopedic name space again. -- till we *) 22:37, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC)

I continue to believe that the article does not belong in the main article (encyclopedic) namespace, for the reasons stated here. However, I will concede that the article is better than it was now that the egregious exaggerations are gone. Kat 02:34, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)


I am not arguing here that Daniel C. Boyer is suitable for inclusion in the main namespace but I would like to point out four facts having a bearing on analysing me under the 1000-person test or 5,000 person test:

  • I was mentioned in Brill's Content
  • My illustration "The Improper Estonian" appeared in two issues of The Improper Bostonian, a newspaper circulated widely in the Boston area
  • I had an article in The Concord Monitor and New Hampshire Patriot
  • My response to an inquiry appeared in New York Arts Magazine, which has a readership of 65,000; additional people probably saw it online
  • My bio appears in New York Arts Magazine, the readership of which has now increased to 800,000
  • My biography appears in the 2005 and 2006 editions of Who's Who in America
  • My biography appears in the 2006 edition of Who's Who in the World

. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:28, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I conceed that the last one is of interest. マイカル (MB) 14:50, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

I still think the fist and second are not of particular interest. Also, these four examples simply shows you are involved in surrealism,

In the interests of accuracy, only the last relates to my involvement in surrealism. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:17, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

not that you are important. I never doubted that you were invovled. マイカル (MB) 14:50, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

Deserving artists

[edit]

Your creation of articles for "deserving artists" (and some of them are arguably, others certainly, more deserving than I am) hardly proves any point about Daniel C. Boyer. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:33, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Daniel, the page I cited was not for your benefit, as it uses subtle rhetorical techniques which experience has shown that you find unpersuasive. Others, on the other hand, may find it illuminating. In any case, this is a poor place to discuss it; you're welcome to create a talk page for it somewhere should you wish. Kat 03:18, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)


New discussion

[edit]

As I see it, the question of whether to include a particular biography on Wikipedia should be determined by an analysis of whether the individual in question is a private person or a public figure. Private persons should be limited to the user space, and public figures should be fair game for encyclopedia articles. This test is frequently applied by courts in defamation cases, but it is just as relevant here, albeit in a different way. The biggest problem that courts have in determining whether a private person should be regarded as a public figure is whether the individual has "engaged in purposeful activity inviting criticism" or has "acquired substantial media access in relation to the controversy at issue." To me, the issue is a no-brainer when it comes to Daniel C. Boyer, if for no other reason than the fact that a large cross-section of well-respected Wikipedians are seriously debating the merits of including his biography as a Wikipedia article. As far as I'm concerned, if I have to spend more than five minutes determining why someone should or should not be included in Wikipedia, . . . they're in!

As for the fact that other, more deserving artists do not have their biographies included in Wikipedia, so what? All this means is that Wikipedians need to get to work on writing these other biographies. This issue is reminiscent of the issue of whether Wikipedia was being turned into a geographical gazzette by the surplus of geographical articles created by Rambot. -- NetEsq 19:25, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think there is no reason whatsoever for Kat's obscure artist's page to be linked to here. It has no relevance. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:32, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave it linked and let other Wikipedians judge the relevance of the page for themselves. Martin 01:52, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If a talk page on my published works, the least significant and extensive of what I have done in the visual arts, is to exist, there should be a talk page on my exhibitions. I don't understand why the focus on my published works, and why I am found lacking from this vantage point, when this is not the chiefly relevant issue. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:12, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I question the accuracy of the statement "Pov text was rewritten by other editors". Would anyone please give me a specific example? I think this debatable, to say the least. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:44, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Current disputes over articles

[edit]

Page should be listed on Current disputes over articles. Otherwise, the boilerplate text should be removed, and the article should be moved to the main namespace. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:27, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. However, this subject is now on user:MyRedDice/ToDo, for all that's worth. Martin 20:23, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I'm not seeing this... --Daniel C. Boyer 20:23, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

All the Days After: Critical Voices in Poetry and Artwork

[edit]

It should be noted that my drawing "Afghanistan" appeared in All the Days After. (See above.) --Daniel C. Boyer 20:16, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel_C._Boyer/undelete&oldid=290490775"