A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Pierre Price, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Pierre Price until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot ( talk) 01:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC) reply

You need to add Helen A. Harrison to your COI articles on your user page, and to follow WP Guidance on conflict of interest editing. Also, have you ever edited from other accounts or user names? Netherzone ( talk) 04:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Netherzone I have added Helen A. Harrison to my COI articles. In 2010 and 2015 I had edited from an account under my own name. Scribe1791 ( talk) 14:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Is that the same user name that you used to create the previous two autobiographies? Netherzone ( talk) 17:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Netherzone, yes. Since entering into this conversation, I have tried my best to be transparent, have answered all of your questions honestly, and will continue to do so. In the revision in my user sandbox that I created for the pupose of an edit request/review, I took your advice and have eliminated the sources that you stated were problematic, and only including the ones that you said were valid. I defer to your judgment if you feel these sources are insufficient to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements or the article's history and my prior involvement with it precludes the article's existence on WP. I am still learning about the ins and outs here and have followed your guidance on following the proper protocols, i.e., making the COI declaration and submitting a formal edit request at your recommendation, referencing the draft mentioned above as a proposed rewrite to address sourcing concerns. Please let me know if there is anything further I can do to address the concerns with this article (other than no longer editing it directly, which I now know not to do). Scribe1791 ( talk) 17:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Why are you claiming to be a "newbie" [1], [2] when that clearly is not the truth? Yet, you created two prior autobiographies, one that was deleted in 2010, and another that was created in 2015. This calls into question the credibility of your other statements, including other accounts. Netherzone ( talk) 22:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Netherzone I meant it in comparison to experienced editors. I was not familiar with COI considerations when I created my first article in 2010, obviously, as I created it using own name as a username - if I was trying to deceive anyone, this is certainly not a good strategy. In 2015, I felt that I had progressed in my career and had some valid sources, so I engaged with an editor advertising their services on Elance, and I assumed that this was something of a standard practice, as there were literally dozens of freelancers there who specialized in Wikipedia editing. I am not clear if this editor ever disclosed that they were compensated, nor was I aware (at the time) that this type of disclosure was standard practice; I had assumed that the editor was a professional and was observing any types of compliance that would be expected of them. I am not sure what other accounts would be a concern; if there are any that are being called into question, I would be curious as to which accounts you are referring to. Scribe1791 ( talk) 22:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

So you hired Gwanwata on Elance for pay, correct? Netherzone ( talk) 23:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Netherzone no I did not. I came into contact with @ Gwanwata via one of the other artists in the Techspressionist community, and he had an interest in the project and learning more about it, being an artist himself. Scribe1791 ( talk) 23:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC) Scribe1791 ( talk) 23:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Techspressionism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Techspressionism until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by WomenArtistUpdates ( talk • contribs)

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on social media platforms to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. Netherzone ( talk) 15:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Netherzone, it is being called into question whether Techspressionism is anything other than a "portmanteau" that describes my personal artistic output in the discussion for deletion of this article. I have made other members of the Techspressionist community aware of this discussion so that they can weigh in, and actually stated this on the discussion for deletion page that I would post a link to the discussion on the Techspressionists Facebook Group. There was no effort made to disguise this action, as it was publicly stated directly. Is this something that is inappropriate if the very fact of whether there are other artists who identify with the term appears to be the primary issue? I was not aware of the term "canvassing" (within the context of Wikipedia) until looking it up just now, or the fact that obtaining public opinion outside Wikipedia is a no-no. It was also brought up in the discussion for deletion (by a contributor I have no familiarity with) that the contributor requesting the deletion did not first raise their concerns in the article's talk page first. Wouldn't this approach be more aligned with a collaborative spirit, versus the contributor saying "there is no alternative to deletion"? I would be interested in your thoughts on this matter, as you are clearly an experienced editor here. I am not sure if you will still agree, but I have been making an effort to work with you in a collaborative spirit (as you had previously noted) thus far (ie with the image edits, etc. I have also placed a rewrite of the article on Colin Goldberg in my user sandbox, with only the sources you stated were valid on the talk page for the article, and made a formal request for edit, referencing this rewrite, using the COI template as you recommended. I have answered all of your questions honestly, to the best of my ability. It seems odd that I cannot discuss this debate outside Wikipedia, but I am still becoming accustomed to the rules of this environment, as you can see. If you feel that there is anything that can be done to improve the page(s) in question, I welcome your Wikipedia expertise, and encourage you to make any edits directly that you may see fit, as you have done thus far with general cleanup, etc. I appreciate the effort you have put in this far to improve the article(s), guide the discussion(s) and to explain the customs and protocol here. Scribe1791 ( talk) 15:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello Scribe, I had started to write a long response to you, but feel like this whole situation is taking up too much of my precious time as a volunteer who has many interests and a busy life.

To my way of thinking, it would be helpful for you to read – in depth and with an open mind – two Wikipedia essays that were crafted over a period of years by the WP community of volunteer editors. You don't need to respond to me about these and I hope they provide some new insights.

• Wikipedia:Buy one, get one free
• Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing

I think you are here in good faith, but that you do not yet fully understand the purpose of the encyclopedia, nor the problematics of systemic bias that are introduced by these types of COI walled gardens.

I'm of the mind that there are two viable alternatives to deletion of the Techpressionism article: redirect/merge with the Colin Goldberg article on yourself, or with the Digital art article.

Best regards, and thank you very much for being civil in your communications and for trying to be transparent, it is appreciated. Netherzone ( talk) 19:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello @ Netherzone; thanks for your thoughtful reply; the links you provided did provide insight and make sense to me. I think that your proposal that the Techspressionism article and the Colin Goldberg merge makes sense, and that the Colin Goldberg article should go away and be redirected to the Techspressionism article. I feel that Techspressionism is certainly more notable than I am as an individual artist, as it has grown into a sizable community with many other artists involved. For instance, we have our first museum show coming up in Brooklyn this summer, for which I am not a curator. The other artists in the group feel strongly about the importance of this community. I feel that Techspressionism is not a subset of Digital art and should not be merged into this article, as it includes painting and sculpture. In fact, the term was created because of the inadequacy of Digital art as a term to describe work that is physical but created with the aid of technology, such as my own. Let me know what you think about this line of reasoning. Also, I think the Techspressionism article should be the one that remains of the two since the article has already been deemed B-class (I'm not even really sure what that means), and the Colin Goldberg article is start-class. If someone wants to make an article about me down the road (definitely NOT me), if I become notable enough to meet Wikipedia's requirements, then so be it. I have reposted the majority of this response on the Techspressionism deletion discussion page and await a decision based on consensus. Scribe1791 ( talk) 20:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello! Scribe1791, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz Read! Talk! 03:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello, Scribe1791,

I thought I'd alert you to the Teahouse as a great place to bring your general questions about editing on the project, Wikipedia's deletion processes or conflict-of-interest concerns. I encourage you to visit it and experienced editors can offer you advice and a second opinion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you Liz! I just posted some questions there. I also appreciate you taking a look at the AfD discussion on Techspressionism. I welcome your advice and input. Scribe1791 ( talk) 15:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Also regarding your suggestion of a source analysis for the Techspressionism article, should I just stay out of the AfD discussion at this point? I feel like I have said my piece there - who would do the source analysis - is it open to anyone who looks at the discussion? Scribe1791 ( talk) 15:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply