User talk:Daniel C. Boyer/Relevance

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

Concerns over encyclopedic standards of quality[edit]

This page is still inappropriate and should be edited for relevance by someone other than its subject. I have read through the past talk pages and some of the edit history and say this in the interest of a better Wikipedia.

I believe that autobiographical articles are wholly inappropriate on Wikipedia. Perhaps with his supposed understanding of poetry, literature, and art, Mr. Boyer could best contribute to articles by great poets, writers, and artists throughout history. Many of these articles need work and Mr. Boyer would appear well qualified to write and edit them.

With regard to this article, I believe that works do not bear mention unless they are sufficiently juried, that is, unless they have received the critical acclaim or popular press coverage indicative that the work in question is part of the artistic, literary, or poetic canon. I am particularly concerned that there is at least the appearance that a number of self-published works, student works, and works included in anthologies or periodicals with relatively open standards for publication.

Now that Kat appears to have left Wikipedia, would anyone give examples of what gave the appearance of "works included in anthologies or periodicals with relatively open standards for publication"? I think this is the weakest part of these claims. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:39, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Such items should be removed.

I suggest that we begin by encouraging Mr. Boyer to provide details on the scope of publication, and references, for the works listed, to justify their continued inclusion. Kat 02:44, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree that editing by the subject himself is inappropriate, especially in very clearly controversial articles like this. Take the Nobelist approach: If one nominates oneself, s/he is out of the game. --Menchi 00:46, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)
Would you please give me a cite on this claim? --Daniel C. Boyer 21:42, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Arguments against inclusion : lack of fame[edit]

Daniel C. Boyer hasn't doen anything significantly famous. Sure, he has had some of his work published, but it is very common for an artist to have one's work published, even if said artist is not famous.

Saying that the main standard for someone's inclusion or exclusion when his main activities have been in the visual arts should be what he has had published is very questionable, to say the least. I don't know how we got headed down this road. In the Caroline Chariot-Dayez article it lists her exhibitions, and while I am by no means arguing that this should be done in any Daniel C. Boyer article, I would say it is a more appropriate focus. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:43, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

To say that because he is published he is famous, and therefore warrents are article is ridiculous. I have tried to find proof that he is famous, but have been unable to do so. His published works that I have found online were published by VERY SMALL publishers (have a look for yourself). His book The Tailgating Spinster, isn't even listed on the publishers website anymore. The same publisher has published works of all types of unheard of artists, and if you e-mail the publisher, you can have your work published as well. MB 21:31, Jul 29, 2003 (UTC)

  • Re: "isn't even listed on the publishers website anymore" [sic]: It is now, at least. It's also included in the collections of the SUNY Buffalo libraries. (Marc Snyder stated in e-mail correspondence with me, that he found "references to FIMP in Wikipedia discussions that were inaccurate.") --Daniel C. Boyer 14:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion over quantity and quality of fans[edit]

He's not famous. He's sufficiently well known to make it worth having an article. My case for this rests on one vital fact, as it has done from the start: he has a fan. A fan who is real, who came to Wikipedia by chance, who even lives (and has always lived AFAIK) in a different country to Daniel Boyer. A fan who said [1]:
How funny. Through WikiPedia I got in contact with
surrealist artist Daniel C. Boyer (image: Xanthuppe takes her leave).
He paints, writes and has made a couple of movies too, including The Dead Man*.
First I couldn't believe it. I mean. How often do you accidently get in touch with
celebrites throught the 'net? And even worse: artists? I don't know, but it's not often.
Read: An inquiry about Time!
Cool.
(*must not be confused with Dead Man starring Johnny Depp)
-- Tim Starling 00:51, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)
The number of fans seems a bit, single. Even Hitler has more than that, and he wasn't a nice guy at all. :-| --Menchi 00:57, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)
If Sigge had sought Wikipedia out, in order to promote Boyer, then it would be a different story. But I see no reason to assume Sigge is dishonest. As I have said in Talk:Daniel C. Boyer/Archive 2, the presence of a fan who came here by chance, implies the existence of other fans. -- Tim Starling 01:08, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)
Do we have any way of knowing that Sigge is not Daniel himself? Wikipedia is not needed at all for fan's to find Daniel, he has plenty of other sites that provide such self promotion, and (sorry to shout) WIKIPEDIA IS NOT MEANT AS A PLACE FOR FANS TO MET THE PEOPLE THE IDOLIZE! This does not provide a case for keeping the article, if he has fans, they can search for him and they will immediately find this site (or others). This article is inappropriate for wikipedia, and is not needed. It adds nothing but proof to our critics that Wikipedia is a bad source. MB 01:41, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)
Agreed. Wikipedia is not a "Google for fans". Fans are, etymologically and truly, fanatic -- that word denotes, according to Merriam-Webster, an "excessive enthusiasm" and "uncritical devotion" based not on reality (appropriately encyclopedic?) or hard facts that Wipedia is all about. --Menchi 01:49, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)
"Do we have any way of knowing that Sigge is not Daniel himself?" That was the first question I asked myself. In fact, I said in what is now Talk:Daniel C. Boyer/Archive 1 "Assuming sigg3 and Daniel are different people, I vote we keep it." I then explored Sigge's large, complex home page, saw the photos, the text in Norwegian (or whatever language they speak over there), and, particularly convincingly, the link to the website of Sigge's band. The band website has photos, song lyrics, information about other participants -- I think I may have even done a google search for another band member. Anyway, that convinced me, and I said so. To fabricate Sigge's identity would cost Daniel a huge amount of time. Like, weeks of work. It's just not plausible.
To Menchi: For one thing, he's not fanatical. Etymology often lies. Sigge has a healthy respect for Daniel Boyer, roughly on the scale that, say, I have for Art Tatum. Sigge does not have a webpage devoted to Daniel or anything like that. He just thinks Daniel is a really cool surrealist artist. It is for people like Sigge that our entire popular culture section is written. Who is interested in Star Trek:Deep Space Nine other than Star Trek fans? -- Tim Starling 02:00, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)
First, you only addressed the first sentence of my arguement "Do we have any way of knowing that Sigge is not Daniel himself?" You simply ignored the rest (and more important). Second, Star Trek was 219 times more popular, and known than Daniel C. Boyer, so it doesn't provide a good arguement. Find me another page like Daniel's here, and I will also list is on VfD (if it is of the same scale). There was another page discussed about someone else who had made a page about themself, but they were an accomplished author and professional that had MANY works published of a span of MANY years, so this isn't a good arguement either. Also, while Daniel may be part of Pop culture in the future, he certainly isn't now! MB 02:13, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)
I will answer the rest of your argument later. Right now I think I might do a Mav trick and block myself, because I've just spent the entire morning mucking around on this damn site. -- Tim Starling 02:30, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)
I said I would answer it, so here goes. Wikipedia is indeed not meant as a place fans can meet the people they idolise. It's meant as a place where people can read NPOV information about the people they idolise. Wikipedia aims to provide NPOV information about everything important. The only good argument for deletion of an article is lack of importance. Most of your arguments seem to claim that this article is biased, and you attempt to use that as grounds for deletion. The fact that Daniel Boyer writes about himself is almost irrelevant now, since Daniel's content has been rewritten, and the subsidiary articles are gone.
It has been suggested that an appropriate test for importance is whether 5000 people are affected (or 1000 people, depending on who's talking). I'm saying that Daniel Boyer has affected enough people, and hence the article should be kept. -- Tim Starling 07:57, Jul 31, 2003 (UTC)

I find the continuing pursuit of deletion of this page odd. I can understand someone not feeling that it was necessary to add it, but so long as the excessive linkage from more important articles is contained, I disagree with deleting it. I think Tim has made consistent sense on this issue. 

-- Jake 02:54, 2003 Jul 30 (UTC)


At first glance of http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Daniel_C._Boyer I only see 1, maybe 2 articles not about Daniel C. Boyer that could be "important." Being the case, this still doesn't provide a reason for keeping this article. (note that a lot of the pages linking here are malfunctioning redirects [b/c they have the VfD spoiler on them]). MB 02:57, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)

The fact that Mr. Boyer has a fan base may justify the presence of an article, but it does not justify the self-promotion present on the page in its current form, nor does it justify the inclusion of student works or nonjuried works. -- Kat 15:58, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)


Votes for deletion : fame (and self promotion)[edit]

Whether or not you have a problem with the page isn't the issue. The problem is this person is not of enough importance to warrent an article. The only reason it even exists is because Daniel Boyer himself created it. It's a conflict of interest for people to go around creating articles about themselves, expecially if they are not well know, because they can state pretty much anything. (Please note that I have made a couple of additions to the article in question to claify some things he had left unclear to make himself sound more accomplished than he really is). But this is all besides the point. I don't think wikipedia(ns) should be in the business of shameless self promotion (which this article is clearly an example of). Please do some research for yourself, you will see my point. Please also note that I believe Daniel has made many great contributions to wikipedia, especially on the subject of art. I still however feel that he doesn't warrent a page about himself. MB 20:38, Jul 29, 2003 (UTC)
Let me restate my originally arguement a bit better:
Daniel C. Boyer hasn't doen anything significantly famous. Sure, he has had some of his work published, but it is very common for an artist to have one's work published, even if said artist is not famous. To say that because he is published he is famous, and therefore warrents are article is ridiculous. I have tried to find proof that he is famous, but have been unable to do so. His published works that I have found online were published by VERY SMALL publisher (have a look for yourself). His book The Tailgating Spinster, isn't even listed on the publishers website anymore. The same publisher has published works of all types of unheard of artists, and if you e-mail the publisher, you can have your work published as well. MB 21:38, Jul 29, 2003 (UTC)


What about MB creating a page about himself ?[edit]

Would anyone object of me creating a page about my life, my accomplishments, and generally about myself? It of course would be open for others to edit. MB 20:29, Jul 29, 2003 (UTC)

Don't you already have one here? ;^) Seriousely, we just had a discussion about this. I forget the user's name, but he created an entry on himself and it was decided that if other's hadn't written articles about him or heaped praise upon him, he wasn't worthy an entry. I guess the entry was deleted as a result. So I'd say, wait until you do something that makes you famous. If Warhol was right, we'll all get there eventually. :^D —Frecklefoot 20:39, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I object. I don't think wikipedians should be in the business of shameless self promotion. Oh, it was you that said that...[2]. :) Angela

Right, so based on your arguments, Daniel C. Boyer should be deleted? Otherwise, if it is kept, I will make one about myself, and suggest everyone I know do the same. The only reason I have seen to keep the article is b/c Daniel has been published. I too have publishments about me, so isn't this reason enough for me to create an article exagerating my importance and accomplishments?

If you do some serious research on the works listed on Daniel C. Boyer, you will see that he isn't important, or famous. His only claim to fame is art criticts telling people that his work is useless, and some of his "work" being published. To say that because he is published he is famous, and therefore warrents are article is ridiculous. I have tried to find proof that he is famous, but have been unable to do so. His published works that I have found online were published by VERY SMALL publishers (have a look for yourself). His book The Tailgating Spinster, isn't even listed on the publishers website anymore. The same publisher has published works of all types of unheard of artists (That don't have articles on wikipedia!), and if you e-mail the publisher, you can have your work published as well. I really have nothing against this guy, it's just that an article about him doesn't belong here, at least "until [he does] something that makes [him] famous." MB 21:04, Jul 29, 2003 (UTC)

Your research leaves a lot to be desired, and can hardly be characterised as "serious". Danielle Nierenberg was a student at Monmouth College working as a book reviewer for its then-student newspaper The Oracle. She reviewed The Octopus Frets: political poems, a book of poetry (though it did contain a frontispiece by me) and found that it was "better left unread". If you equate this criticism to "useless," I think that would be substantially justified, but to describe then-Miss Nierenberg (she is now married) as an "art critic" or The Octopus Frets as being artwork (when it only contains one artwork) is really stretching. All this stuff about publication regarding a subject whose primary activities have been in art is somewhat questionable, moreover. Wouldn't the focus be on, e.g. the exhibition record? --Daniel C. Boyer 14:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mbecker that Boyer's entry doesn't belong in the 'pedia. —Frecklefoot 14:26, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Some issues with vanity page[edit]

There are indeed several problems with vanity pages, of which I will mention a few:

  • Content. It is difficult to verify the content of pages such as Daniel C. Boyer or Florentin Smarandache. It is, however, safe to assume that they are biased. Even if there is independent information about little-known persons, it may take much time and work to find it.
  • Relevance. Enycyclopedia readers expect relevant content. Self-promotional pages are not likely to be relevant, perhaps with the exception of really important people whose views about themselves may be of some interest.
  • Authorship. That is the most serious problem here. No serious encyclopedia (scientific journal, publisher, etc) would allow its authors to glorify themselves in articles. I can't see why Wikipedia should. Methinks that such "articles" should be banned altogether.The very least that must be done is to make it policy that such pages contain warnings that they are autobiographic and should therefore be viewed as biased, and that they must be short and modest. Without a clear-cut policy about conflicts of interest, Wikipedia will not look credible to critical readers.
  • Intent. "Shameless self-promotion" - that seems to describe the thing very well. Wikipedia is not a showcase for personal vanities, and all attemps to use it as such are violations of the Wikipedia spirit.

In view of all this, I think it might be best to get rid of these pages altogether. Kosebamse 16:08, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Setting up metrics for comparison[edit]

Here is a pretty simple although not completely scientific test.

Here are some results of google searchs related to other surrealist artists, and Daniel:

  1. "Daniel C. Boyer" surrealism - 240 results.
  2. "Daniel Boyer" surrealism - 46 results.
  3. "Hieronymus Bosch" surrealism - 1,470 results.
  4. "Lewis Carroll" surrealism - 1,210 results.
  5. "André Breton" surrealism - 3,530 results.
  1. "Marcel Duchamp" surrealism - 5,450 results.
  2. "René Magritte" surrealism - 1,740 results.
  3. "Joan Miró" surrealism - 1,360 results.
  4. "Max Ernst" surrealism - 5,320 results.
  5. "Yves Tanguy" surrealism - 1,790 results.


Note that one of these artists doesn't even have an article. Yet Daniel C. Boyer does. MB 22:45, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)

They're all also dead artists with a large body of work. Daniel C. Boyer is a young and basically unknown artist. He may be much discussed on Wikipedia, but only because he is the most egregious example of someone bolstering their own prominence via editing, he is merely the case that will set a precedent at Wikipedia. Nobody here is discussing his art itself, just whether or not it exists, can be verified, or is viewed as important.
The question of "whether or not it exists" is getting into dishonesty, not analysis. Extensive evidence exists on this point. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:12, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Hopefully, a precedent that serves to preserve Wikipedia as a source for neutral and factual information. Daniel Quinlan 23:15, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)
This is no doubt only the first of many arguments about self-promotional articles. If this precedent is to have any worth in settling those future disputes, there must be some objective guidelines that can be used as a baseline for discussion. I think MB's metric is a good start, but I also think there must be some consideration about the independence or stature of a source. For example, if Time Magazine wrote a cover story on Daniel C. Boyer tomorrow, he might merit an article, even absent additional sources. The independence and stature of Time Magazine might alone be enough.
My point is that we could definitely use a metric for verifiability (see Wikipedia talk:Verifiability), and so we should probably try to find one. It will not settle any arguments, but it will give people a concrete benchmark with which to frame discussions.
An example of the difficulties of this issues can be found by looking at Talk:Collage.
SpeakerFTD 00:16, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Note: the hits are now:
  1. "Daniel C. Boyer" surrealism - 729 results.
  2. "Daniel Boyer" surrealism - 129 results. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Daniel C. Boyer" surrealism - 842 results.
  2. "Daniel Boyer" surrealism - 155 results. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Daniel C. Boyer" surrealism - 1,190 results.
  2. "Daniel Boyer" surrealism - 193 results. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel_C._Boyer/Relevance&oldid=33988869"