Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hayden Kays

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) –Davey2010^Talk 23:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Kays

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

My extensively informed PROD here was boldly removed with the sole changes of simply adding sources, sources that even simply consist of one questionable source (TheArcadia), three clearly stated interviews; none of that amounts to anything close to comparably removing the PROD if it itself stated the concerns, my searches and examinations how he was not satisfying any substance. Even the 2 articles that are the only ones to come close to "news", TheArcadia and i-D, are still only noticeably set apart with time, suggesting the news was not even consistent. SwisterTwister talk 17:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below are some sources. These are examples; more are available. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Tully, Monicha (September 20, 2016). "Hayden Kays: Artist and Anarchist". The Arcadia. Retrieved September 20, 2016.

– I consider The Arcadia to be a reliable source. It is a printed magazine with paid circulation (see here).

"Profile of an extraordinary seller: Hayden Kays". The Telegraph. September 20, 2016. Retrieved September 20, 2016.
Simpson, Leah (May 11, 2015). "Interview: Hayden Kays in Dubai". Time Out Dubai. Retrieved September 20, 2016.
"Hayden Kays bridges the gap between street art and high art". i-D. May 5, 2015. Retrieved September 20, 2016.
Daily Mail

Keep: per sourcing listed above, this Telegraph piece in particular is good WP:SIGCOV. Esquire wrote "Even in the notoriously unpredictable, whimsical sphere that is the modern day art world, commanding the sort of attention that young British artist Hayden Kays has in the last few month takes some doing." Seems to be a modern artist of note. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, this vote is not taking in my analysis listed above and there's simply nothing, again, to suggest those listed sources are actually convincing, not only is his career simply not actually convincing, there's nothing for any means of substantial notability. Note the Esquire is actually only an interview, satisfying his talking about himself. SwisterTwister talk 02:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because I reviewed the sources on the article, the sources noted above, and did my own search to confirm enough significant coverage exists. It does, passes WP:ARTIST. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 07:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - One, the keep vote is not at all acknowledging the analysis and concerns above, so a Keep vote cannot honestly be taken to fully thoughts if they haven't cared to look at all of the concerns listed. Also, having explicitly mentioned 3 of the sources listed are mere interviews, that's not "significant coverage", this would essentially be the equivalent of republished PR and calling it coverage, because both consist of simply firsthand subject-supplied information itself. Also, as noted, he is not notable an artist because it explicitly shows there are no museum collections, major publications or actual non-interview or unconvincing coverage; simply stating that major news sources are listed is not the same thing as actually examining them and stating the concerns. The article itself is then filled with claims of other people, such as "He sold a piece to this person" and then "he was involved with this other person and this group", not only is that coatracking but it's clear attempts at PR by shoehorning names. SwisterTwister talk 18:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Allsopp, Ashleigh (2014-04-29). "Typewriter art by Hayden Kays stars in Stereotypewriter exhibition". Digital Arts. International Data Group. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  
  Typewriter art is to be celebrated at a new solo show in Brighton, showcasing the work of London-based artist Hayden Kays.
  ...
  Hayden's work has been featured in the Independent, on book covers and in other newspapers, and also hit the media when One Direction's Harry Styles purchased £20,000 worth of pieces from the artist earlier this year. Plus, Hayden designed the artwork for the Kooks' new single and album.
  He's also starred in exhibitions alongside David Bailey and Damien Hirst at the Saatchi Gallery, and has recently published his first book, 'Hayden Kays is an Artist,' which features a collection of his work.
2. "Photo Flash: Hayden Kays's 'Those Who Suffer Love' Presented to Sadie Frost for 50th Birthday". Broadway World. 2015-08-11. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  
  Hayden already has a list of high-profile collectors including Chris Martin, Matt Smith, Lily James, Noel Fielding, Brad Pitt, Billie Piper and Sharleen Spiteri.
  London-based Hayden Kays is one of the most provocative artists of his generation.
  Kays is both classically trained but ruthlessly contemporary. His work creates hard-hitting messages that could be from any time but speak so pointedly to right now. He seamlessly celebrates and critiques the culture industry with his bold imagery and acerbic word-play.
  As a painter, sculptor and printmaker, Kays is entrenched in art history, but retains an unashamed love for popular culture, using everyday references, his work relates to and subverts the canon of the Pop Artists of the 1950s and the Young British Artist movement. He was recently heralded as the man who is spearheading the evolution of the YBA movement in the UK today.
  His take on society and pop culture has already caught the eye of art alumni Jake Chapman, pop royalty Harry Styles and film luminaries such as Jude Law, who are all avid collectors of his work.
3. Alberge, Dalya (2015-03-23). "The great pop art swap shop: Artists trade works with one other for reasons of friendship or even rivalry — and to save money". Financial Times. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  
  Vincent van Gogh and Paul Gauguin, Henri Matisse and Pablo Picasso, Andy Warhol and Jasper Johns — they are among some of the greatest masters who have swapped works of art with their contemporaries. For some, it was a mark of mutual respect, the extension of an exchange of ideas; for others, a mutual rivalry. Or both.
  As a tradition spanning centuries, swapping continues today. Jake Chapman, one half of the Chapman brothers, has just agreed to swap certain pieces with Hayden Kays, a pop artist who borrows imagery from mass culture and whom Chapman describes as “acerbic, witty, shallow and subversive … quite brilliant”.
  ...
  Victoria Williams, director of the Cob Gallery, London, where Kays will exhibit this spring, says: “It’s amazing for so established and well-recognised an artist as Jake [Chapman] to be recognising Hayden … and swapping.”
  Kays can pick whatever he wants, Chapman says, having himself chosen one of Kays’ sculptures, “This Is Not A Brillo Box”, a variation on Warhol’s iconic “Brillo Soap Pads” boxes.
  Link to Jake and Dinos Chapman.
4. The sources found by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) and Safehaven86 (talk · contribs).
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Hayden Kays to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of the sources - Again, the first one is what I mentioned above in my nomination, the sourcing and information alone focuses with the fact he was involved with someone, and that someone bought his artwork; if everyone came to Wikipedia and said "Hey, someone bought my artwork, can I have an article?" If we wanted to conserve what this encyclopedia means, we would not automatically start one until we ensured that we had not only sufficient coverage, but also non-PR and trivial coverage. The next article not only starts with his own clients, but it goes to say unsubstantiated things about him such as "classically trained but ruthlessly contemporary. His work creates hard-hitting messages that could be from any time but speak so pointedly to right now. He seamlessly celebrates and critiques the culture industry with his bold imagery and acerbic word-play....He is entrenched in history....an unashamed love for popular culture"; the last sentence then focuses with his clients again; that can hardly be confided as substantial and untouched-by-subject coverage, if it focuses that heavily with clients, yes although the journalist may have been interested, that's not what gets an article confirmed here alone. The next source then has a beginning paragraph about something completely different and it's not actually about the subject himself. The information listed then goes to only mention him about 5 times and that's because he was involved with someone about art; that alone is quite thin and cannot be held to be substantial enough for an article alone. This then concludes all sources listed, so that's simply not saying a lot if that's the best sourcing added. As for the comment stating that "other sources were also listed" is not considering or acknowledging the concerns about the article that have been listed here, including I challenged the sources above and explicitly showed they either contained PR or interviews alone; the next challenged line of sourcing was because of not only named mentions but also then the mere fact it was a known news source, without even actually stating the contained information, that's not the same thing as then also showing the concerned parts, as I have noted myself SwisterTwister talk 02:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - After reviewing the sources, I find them to be valid and able to establish notability. I reject utterly the notion that interviews are not a valid source, or that interviews cannot be used to establish notability. If the interview is published by a secondary source, it is no longer a primary source, and it is independent of the subject, because it underwent editorial review and was selectively published. Fieari (talk) 01:10, 26 September 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.