Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Weibel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Peter Weibel was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was ambiguous. On 29 Aug 2004, this article was extensively rewritten. The preponderance of votes after that rewrite are either keep or neutral. Failing to reach a clear consensus for deletion, the article defaults to keep. Rossami 00:00, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

German and possible copyvio. Too tired to check myself.  :^) - Lucky 6.9 09:11, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Its a copy of his CV, which is probably not copyrighted. It's online as a Word doc at [1]. Probably worth translating and then deciding if he's notable enough; if he is, then we can deal with the form of it. -- Jmabel 15:27, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • And the same CV is also on his personal wbsite, here. Would that make it copyvio? Anyway, he seems reasonably notable, but isn't this the kind of thing we're supposed to not encourage? How is it more laudable and appropriate to upload this German document than if the same thing had existed on German Wikipedia? That seems pretty hair-splitting. Btw, what does exist on German Wikipedia is a much shorter version, a stub, about the same person , here, created in August 2003 and last updated July 2004. (Wouldn't it be sort of more logical the other way round, with the long version on de.wikipedia and the short one here?) Bishonen 17:04, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I say we just translate what's in the German Wikipedia. -- Jmabel 00:33, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Right ... except why do we want to help this guy promote himself on en.wikipedia, again? If Wikipedia policy says we have to lick anything he plants on us into shape, then I'm not happy with that policy. Look at this ridiculous substub, for instance, that people will find by following a wikilink in Peter Weibel. Or actually, don't look, Lucky, it'll only remind you of the postings of you-know-who. ;-) Bishonen 08:21, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • So we are assuming that Weibel posted it himself and that it's vanity? I didn't look closely, just closely enough to see that it was an academic's CV. Should we skip translation an go directly to VFD as vanity? -- Jmabel 19:18, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Right. I think a look at the page's What links here plus at the links on the page itself justifies assuming that it's vanity and linkspam. And I advise VfD'ing the ZKM substub too while we're about it. --Bishonen 10:26, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

**I agree, this should be put up for Vfd. Vanity --Fenice 20:39, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

<end moved discussion>

  • In short, vanity by a non-notable academic, delete. -- Jmabel 00:40, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Pride is a sin: delete. Geogre 01:08, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Darn it all! Jmabel, you're right, but we're in a jam, here. The article as it stands should be deleted. The article as it should be should not. We can send it to Clean Up with a note suggesting a re-nomination to VfD if not improved in 60 days. Geogre 00:28, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, definitely no need to bother translating this. This guy is an undistinguished arts professor nobody has ever heard about; his claim to fame is that he also plays a minor role in Austria's federal art endowment bureaucracy. Ratatosk 02:28, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, see moved discussion. --Bishonen 06:37, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not in English, looks like a CV. Average Earthman 11:21, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Now it's in English and looks like an article, so it's now a keep. Still should never have been in German on English wikipedia... Average Earthman 20:30, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 20:32, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Not in English + probable vanity = delete. Isomorphic 19:13, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Since it turns out that he's notable, keep whatever translation and expansion is made (of course.) Isomorphic 21:56, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • BOY, some of you people should really do some homework! This person is one of the first most important video artists per se! Not everyone or everything happens in your 'new' and seemingly uninformed and insular world across The Pond. And, PS, I am not Weibel!!
    • The anonymous entry above (which Bishonen reverted as vandalism & I restored, because it apparently is nothing of the sort) got me to go to Google rather than just look at the article itself. I searched for '"Peter Weibel" video'. Looks like this person is notable, even if the article as it stands is not what we should have. The Tate Gallery describes him as one of "curators who have been essential to the presentation of new media art over the last forty years". [2] The Gallery of the Austrian Cultural Forum in Prague did an exhibit of his work that all on its own would suggest notability [3] and here isa pretty solid interview with him. I reverse my earlier vote. Keep and clean up. -- Jmabel 23:36, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • I am the anonymous intruder above and am relieved someone did a little research! Europe has many significant artists in this field, and has done so since the technology was launched in the late 60s (In fact, working with and commenting on 'TV culture', before non-broadcast technology was available, started in the early 60s with TV 'sculptures' by Wolf Vostell, a German, simultaneously with Nam June Paik - soon to be followed by a Swede, Ture Sjolander, long before Video Art per se was 'invented').To be of value your encyclopedia MUST have a global overview not the almost parochial views witnessed on this page. In this respect It is a pity the main Video Art page does not expand to give some brief description of non-American work. Anyway keep Weibel in, but if possible (I agree) get English translation/s.
  • After looking at the new research I reverse my earlier judgement of this beeing vanity. It's not vanity, he's notable, German Wikipedia just has a stubby entry, and at the time I did no further research. Now I also did a Google-search and it showed that Peter Weibel's art has had several exhibitions in the German-speaking area of Europe. For some reason the CV does not list his exhibitions - so I don't believe Weibel posted it himself. We'll have to translate it and expand it. Keep. --Fenice 11:44, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree that an article about Peter Weibel the video artist would be encyclopedic, and change my vote to neutral, but I feel that's the most I can do. The page listed is just a list of Peter Weibel's academic posts (his artistic achievements being polished off with the single word "Künstler" = artist). Some of these should go in the article, indeed, and I don't have much experience of Wiki policy on translating raw materials like these. Perhaps it's what we do. On the other hand, how about sending the CV to the German Wikipedia, where any potential originator of a real en.Wikipedia article would be able to mine it for information and German terminology? To translate professional titles from other languages into English is difficult and full of traps. It seems to me that any German titles incorporated in an English article would be both more economically and more safely (because of fewer steps involved) done after the article has been written/drafted. Bishonen 19:01, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • The translation will be no problem. I just started the translation and expanded it.--Fenice 20:38, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and evolve the article. -- Pjacobi 22:02, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I believe the article now addresses all of the objections that have been raised above. -- Jmabel 22:44, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.