Jesse Waugh

Jesse Waugh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Promotional article of non-notable subject with really misleading claims and sources. Freewaves is not MOCA [1] (I got rid of that), and a short film screening at Freewaves certainly isn't enough to establish notability. His books are self published as "Carpophage Press" and cannot be used to establish notability. Carpophage is a company he directed; its only mention is on his resume: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jessewaugh "Carpophage Press" doesn't turn up any results in OneSearch. All its books are his [2] His own bio page [3] tries to elide the difference between having a book included in a library and being included in the permanent collection of that museum. They are not the same at all. And I'm not even getting into the claims that he has started a movement, when he is the only one following it. Theredproject (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I have yet to see proof that Waugh was a substantial part of any significant art exhibition and he is all over the internet with self promotions, and this person is not regarded as an important art figure or is widely cited by peers or successors, and he did not originate anything of value (ie. nobody else uses "pulchrism" as a term for a conceptual art style, therefore it is clearly not an art movement). Jooojay (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per my comments at the previous AfD and because nominator's rationale is invalid. Attempting to rewrite the article to support your attempts to delete it do not seem to be in good faith (Freewaves was held at the Museum, per the sources cited, please stop deleting accurately sourced content). The subject satisfies the GNG and WP:CREATIVE (as having exhibited at a major exhibition, as established at the prior AfD), and nothing has changed since then. The other comments about LinkedIn are irrelevant as LinkedIn has not been used as a source and the self-published books were not used to establish notability. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 00:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Waugh satisfies the criteria at CREATIVE. Freewaves is the main experimental media arts festival in the western US. I don't see that the article makes the claim that Freewaves is the same as MOCA, it just says they hosted the main portion of the festival that year, which they did. That's a red herring, in any case. Night Ranger (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Theredproject: Why would this be any different than last time? Why do you think he doesn't meet 4b of WP:CREATIVE? If you can't answer these questions, it seems clear that the tacit consensus is keep. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first AfD was predicated on 4(b) and 4(d). The discussion shows a significant dissensus about 4(b) that was WP:BLUDGEONed pretty heavily. I am also pointing out that 4(d) has no leg to stand on. And I disagree with the interpretation that a short film screening in Freewaves *alone* with *zero* other exhibitions of any legitimacy, rises to bar typically set at AfD for 4(b). I renom'd it because of this, and because I thought it was important for it to go through a peer-review with a different set of editors. Unfortunately one or two of the previous editors have been Canvassing, so we will get all of those !votes again, but I personally think it is more enlightening to hear from those that don't have a vested interest in the article, either as primary creators/editors, or having been on either side of the last Bludgeon fest.--Theredproject (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The references contain trivial references or are sourced from the subject's own website, which is inappropriate. WP:CREATIVE notability criteria are not met.--Rpclod (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • • 4(b) is unquestioningly satisfied. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4(b) is nowhere near satisfied by an artist who has had one video included in one show with over a hundred other artists. There's nothing significant about an artist who would appear to have had three (count em, 3) film screenings and four art exhibitions in his multi-decade art career. In other words he has a minor exhibition about every three years. Seven shows in twenty years is the definition of an amateur artist, not a notable artist. Even Sunday painters typically exhibit in the annual local show. ANd the sources, Have you noticed that they are terrible and mostly non-existent in terms of critical coverage? in other words, almost nobody has noticed his career. Having read the first AfD, where the comedic claim is made that his self-published book is in the permanent collections of several major museums, thereby satisfying WP:CREATIVE (ha), I am really at a loss as to why you and a couple of other editors are again pushing this clearly non-notable artist so hard. Is Waugh a friend of yours? I really do not get it. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:CREATIVE - having a short video played at Freewaves does not amount to being "a substantial part of a significant exhibition". Freewaves may well count as a significant exhibition, but the requirement includes that his work must have been a substantial part of Freewaves, and that would require more than what we have here. - Bilby (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not enough coverage in sources. Note that I was canvassed by Special:Contributions/81.44.32.50, who asked me to vote "keep". The person canvassed others in the same manner. Binksternet (talk) 07:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that this is considered "stealth canvassing", and some of the messages are partisan/bias on voting. Does anything happen as a result of this? Jooojay (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He was a featured exhibit at LA Freewaves, and yes, the opening exhibit (of which Waugh was part) that year was held at the MOCA in LA. Satisfies criteria 4(b) of WP:CREATIVE, which is a key guideline of notability. Using primary sources to confirm uncontroversial facts isn't a reason to delete an article and doesn't negate the subjects notability under CREATIVE 4(b). The comments about sourcing are not a legitimate reason to delete an article about a notable subject and the comments about Waugh's self promotion elsewhere aren't relevant here. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to check, where does it say his work was a featured exhibit, as opposed to a normal part of the exhibition? I haven't seen that before. - Bilby (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The opening exhibition was at MOCA that year, so those were the initial featured exhibits. Maybe "featured" isn't the right term? He was part of the opening exhibition. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do we have a source for this? The only thing I've seen had his El Angel video as one of 12 videos screened in Program 04, which doesn't sound like that substantial a part of Freewaves. Is being one of 12 short films in the fourth video program a substantial part of of Freewaves as a whole? I wish they had an archive of the 1997 site - the best I can find is 1998, which had over 130 short films screened at the MOCA. - Bilby (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • By displaying at the MOCA portion of Freewaves, he is automatically considered a substantial part of the festival. The MOCA events are the highlight of the festival. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • The MOCA portion in 1998 involved over 130 videos screened over 11 days. I'm finding it hard to see how a single 2 minute short film out of (literally) hundreds of others screened at the MOCA is a "substantial part" of the festival. - Bilby (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • This was established at the prior deletion discussion.The quantity of films shown at the festival is irrelevant. The MOCA exhibit is the highlight of the festival. If El Angel had been part of the roadshow, that would be different. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sorry, I'm still not seeing it. In 1997, there was no roadshow. Freewaves had all of their screenings at the MOCA, and every short film was played there. Just being screened there did not make an short film a "substantial part" of the exhibition. - Bilby (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Bilby, in other words, he exhibited at one of the most important festivals (if not THE most important festival) in his field (experimental videography), at the MOCA. And was important enough to be mentioned in a book for his screening. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 00:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can read it that way if you like. However, I read it as "he appeared in an early version of Freewaves, in which his 2 minute video was one of about a hundred screened over the course of the festival at its single venue, and which garnered a brief mention in a single book which goes on to describe all of the videos that played in that session". I'm not denying that being in Freewaves was important for Waugh, or that it was not an honor to be selected, nor that the work was anything other than excellent. However, what we need to know is not "was it exhibited at a major exhibition", but "was it a substantial part of a major exhibition". All I've seen are claims that it was there - to be one of a hundred+ videos played at the venue doesn't make any single work a "substantial part" on its own, nor does having a two sentences in a book show that it was a substantial part of the event. - Bilby (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • You're mistaken about Freewaves. They did not "screen all films at a single venue". Freewaves that year also broadcast on KCET, cable channels, and public access channels. The list of videos you're referencing are the TOTAL shown at the festival that year, including the broadcasts. Not all of them were shown at the MOCA exhibit. Also, do you have a copy of The Sons and Daughter of Los book? GigglesnortHotel (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They may have screened videos elsewhere, (possibly the same ones they screened at the MOCA), but based on what I have the list of films that screened at the MOCA in 1997 was around 100. We're talking about one two minute short film out of approximately 100 screened and describing it as a "substantial part" of Freewaves. That seems like a stretch. And yes, I have the book. Jesse Waugh is raised on page 181, where the author writes two sentences about El Angel. The author then discusses three other films. It shows that someone noted his film, but again it doesn't show that the short film was a substantial part of the festival.

Anyway, I don't want to keep badgering this, so I'll try to leave discussion for others. I just feel that all we've ever seen is that once, 21 years ago, Waugh had a short film appear as a small part of a significant festival. But WP:CREATIVE needs more than that. Handwaving and saying "because it was one of 100 short films screened it must have been a substantial part" just doesn't seem to be enough. - Bilby (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think Bilby's take on this is spot on. Screening of a two-minute video is fairly insignificant in the context of a festival where 100+ videos are screened. If the screening of this particular work had generated two or three cirtical articles abotu the work, the that would be something. However, it did not, and accordingly what we have here is a minor routine screening.104.163.147.121 (talk) 10:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The criterion for being kept a ta second afd is not that it was kept at a previous afd. We have the right to reconsider, and we can use it , provided a reasonable time has gone by--usually interpreted as 6 months. The criterion at any afd for a artist of the sort of works collected by museums is not appearing in a show in a major museum, but being accepted into the permanent collection, which for most museums is considerably more selective. The other half of the criterion--and is is undecided whether one needs to meet one or both, is thee being substantial 3rd party studies of the works. Writing a book that's in a museum's library is normally not enough. (There is a special case with the art form known as artist's books, which may be collected and located as a special collection in a museum library--I don't think that applies here. Being used as the cover of a book is not enough, but it does pose the need for further checking--and the book turns out to be a self-published comic novel [4] The next question is whether it meets the criterion for FILM, and just being shown as an experiemental film in two shows does not. For details there, I refer to Bilby's analysis.

The impression left here is of a not yet notable artist trying to sound established by including everything possible, even inclusion of the work in a student exhibition. That has a unmistakable tone of promotionalism , and that's another reason for rejection. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the majority of this. Are you really accusing me of using Wikipedia for promotion? The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 00:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relax. If you wrote the entire article, you wrote something promotional, yes. Without a doubt it is very puffed up. However you are not a lesser person for it.104.163.147.121 (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete what a hype job! Any accomplishments here (which are largely hyped up non-accomplishments) are entirely routine. Showing at a single festival opening does not get you notability. The sourcing and the accomplishments are both routine. There is nothing exceptional here that would meet WP:CREATIVE or even WP:GNG.104.163.147.121 (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone block this vandal/troll? ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to Closing admin The Master intentionally removed my vote and comments above, which I have restored. I have voted at 100s of AfDs and that has never happened. something funny going on here.104.163.147.121 (talk) 09:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You vandalized the article three times and then "voted" here as a thinly-veiled personal attack. Anyone who isn't an idiot can see what you're doing. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 16:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I vote at many AFDs. I agreed above with the respected DGG, that the article was promotional. The only person making personal attacks here is you. Please refrain from deleting the valid votes of editors.104.163.147.121 (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this puff piece. Guy (Help!) 16:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subject does not come close to clearing the bar for notability as detailed in WP:BIO and WP:ARTIST and as applied to other artist's bios in previous cases. I am thankful for the footwork other editors have done in the discussions above, but I do not find the arguments for the retention of the article, as presented in this and in the previous AfD, convincing. Marteau (talk) 06:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to Closing admin User:Jessewaugh, the subject of the article, made and then deleted a series of ad-hominem attacks on myself and another editor. They are preserved in the edit history. Theredproject (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to Closing Admin: I am the subject of this article, and though I know it is frowned upon for me to post anything here, I want to state for the record that I believe that this is a politically motivated deletion. Both Michael Mandiberg AKA Theredproject, the editor who proposed this deletion, and Jooojay, the primary supporter of this deletion, openly espouse and advocate for feminism - as is noted on their user pages. I believe that this creates a conflict of interest in their dealings with subject matter pertaining to males. Essentially, I believe they are biased. I also believe that they employ gang tactics as part of their attempt to purge Wikipedia of articles about men -- especially white men such as myself. I do not expect you to accept what I'm writing here, but I will be satisfied to know that it shall remain on the record for people to read when this colossally unjust witch hunt of anything male finally subsides, and people of both genders return to some modicum of sanity. Jessewaugh (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]