Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Storm Sequence

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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 19:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Storm Sequence

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

Article on a single video work by an Australian artist. Most likely COI created, as image uploader is same as article creator, and claims "own work" for image copyright. The artist is notable, with lots of refs, but the particular work is not, with one or two refs. Huge amount of ego inflation going on here. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete My searches only found one good source, not much else. Not notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Changing my vote to Merge with Shaun Gladwell after attempting to find more sources. There's not a lot, but there are sources that say this is an important work. According to the Museum of Contemporary Art: "This work is an important cornerstone in the MCA’s Collection". The COI by Gladderz is problematic; I'll comment at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Shaun_Gladwell_et_al Mduvekot (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Split the difference, redirect to artist page: Shaun Gladwell. If enough sources accumulate there, spin out summary style, though I doubt it'll be necessary. czar 14:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI too would agree with Merge rather than delete.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The Shaun Gladwell article says that it set an Australian record for video art[1] and was the first installation of its kind in Australia.[2] Remove the uncited most well known sentence though. If merging the last sentence and the description would fit under art market. AIRcorn (talk) 08:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This paper from Columbia University refers to Storm Sequence numerous times in a peer reviewed academic literature survey on Gladwell. https://www.academia.edu/6064417/Shaun_Gladwell_Critique_Gesture_and_Skateboarding_with_Charles_Green_ Zenopharmakon (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Zenopharmakon and Mduvekot, I made the entry for this page and paraphrased the same Grogan essay re the status of "Storm Sequence". Croggan (and Green) write: "Storm Sequence is probably Gladwell's best-known work" pp 126. Groggan then footnotes the claim with recorded (Auction) secondary market value of this work etc. I instead, used 'arguably': "The video is arguably the most well know work of Gladwell's artworks" "Arguably", because this academic paper was written a few years ago and certain claims within it can now be contested. Apologies to HappyValleyEditor for this looking VERY much like COI puffery and self declaration. The statement was in fact quoted from a good source, and yet this artwork's status is still "arguable". Maybe delete the line regardless for neutrality? Additionally: The artist Shaun Gladwell and user:gladderz are not 'one and the same'. Changing my user name to alleviate this self-inflicted confusion! Will not be editing the page before working out COI issues in any case. Gladderz (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article subject has significant coverage in numerous reliable sources and passes WP:GNG. As mentioned above the comment, "This work is an important cornerstone in the MCA’s Collection." found here : [3] goes a long way to showing true notability WP:N for this video artwork in and of itself. For the Museum of Contemporary Art to house what some describe as a "cornerstone" truly sets the artwork apart from others. I have added several other references to improve the article. It should be kept in wikipedia. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 01:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this seems enough to keep separately. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 29 April 2016 (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.