Talk:Russell Hill (artist)

Fork Lift, 2013, an installation by Russell Hill at the Royal College of Art.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RussellHill 2013 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

Uncontroversial deletion was removed by user. Proposed for deletion as article clearly is autobiographical as the user who created it is named 'Russell Hill 2013.' Article is unquestionably non-neutral and for self-promotional purposes and fails notability as artist is still in graduate study hasn't received significant independent coverage, references provided are non-neutral and serve to promote user's own work and article should be deleted as productive editing by community is impossible as subject of article lacks sufficient notability to encourage independent and neutral contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.43.1 (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

This article is not soley autobigraphical. It promotes the dissemination of accurate information on its subject through acurate and validated citations and references which not only link to existing Wikipedia Visual Arts pages, but also external pages. (WikiKing236 (talk) 11:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC))

The article is proposed for deletion because it is self-promotional and all articles and references appear to be autobiographical. Wikipedia:Visual Arts has particular problems with self-promotional material so it's important to clear up these orphaned pages written by the artists themselves. Wikipedia strongly discourages autobiographical pages for living persons and in this particular case, since all the edits bar those flagging issues with the page have been made by two users with closely following timestamps, I'm suggesting it be referred to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations.

This artical is acuratelly written with notable citations and references that clearly show the subject to be notable by way of public press. The article is neutral. The artists has recieved moderate independent coverage, and references are neutral. Subject is cited on two seperate Wikipedia pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Curry and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Vogl . Artical has not beeen active long enough to encourage independent contributions, therefore, needs to stay public for this to increase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.241.60.107 (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Russell Hill is a well-known London Artist and this page is sufficient enough to contribute to. (88.96.172.198 (talk) 10:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC))

I can't see a reason for deletion either. Hill has been covered in several press articles (though admittedly these are all about his shortlisting/winning the Catlin Prize). If there is a conflict of interest (it looks likely there is) or promotional issues, they can be dealt with without deletion. Sionk (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Well from the conflict of interest page, see writing about yourself and people you know and without meaning to out any editors, the creator of the article is called Russel Hill 2013 and the additional editors are being investigated for sockpuppetry. Nobody neutral or independent would have any cause to write this article and it's detrimental to the whole visual arts project to allow minor contemporary artists to add themselves to wikipedia in this manner and then object to deletion, allegedly through the use of multiple accounts. I wouldn't object to any useful information being upmerged into another article but the verifiable information is several steps off of any upmergable possibilities as no independent editor has seen fit to create pages for the Catlin Award, which is itself a rather minor award that may fail notability. There are notability guidelines for Creative Professionals, Creative Professionals ) but since Hill hasn't merited independent mention for any gallery representation, major awards, significant sales, inclusion in public collections etc. etc. it seems a clear candidate for deletion to me because there's no obvious way or good reason to retain any of the information here. 86.15.43.1 (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC) 86.15.43.1 (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, I see no reason for deletion based on the comments that Sionk stated. Your views on this page seem to be personal and not objective, as you state many observations which a opinions, and not fact; for example: "minor contemporary artists". This is unfounded as the citations and references listed are sufficient to note significant notability. The Catlin Art Prize is a well documented prize and the fact that it does not have a wikiledia page can not be seen as validation of its insignificance. I see no reason why this article should be deleted. I would suggest that there is a conflict of interests here, along with a personal agenda. (149.241.60.107 (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC))

Has this conversation closed? If so, can the 'Consideration for Deletion' banner be removed? It may discourage contributions. (88.96.172.198 (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC))