| Revision as of 06:48, 31 January 2022 editMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Added missing end tags to discussion close footer to reduce Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:24, 18 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
| *'''Delete''', no independent attribution of notability. --] | ] 05:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | *'''Delete''', no independent attribution of notability. --] | ] 05:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::Dhartung, would ''you'' qualify the BBC as an ''Independent Reliable'' source? --] 16:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC) | ::Dhartung, would ''you'' qualify the BBC as an ''Independent Reliable'' source? --] 16:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' - the sources given may be legit, but as a more-than-usual esoteric topic it needs coverage from outside the inner circle. There are many clothing brand names that won't make the notability guidelines because the only people that write about them are other clothing sites. I've wanted to write an article about one of my personal favorites, Fucking Awesome, but it's ridiculously difficult to find on Google (try it), and harder still to find write-ups about it, other than notes on forums or other shops. ] ] 07:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' - the sources given may be legit, but as a more-than-usual esoteric topic it needs coverage from outside the inner circle. There are many clothing brand names that won't make the notability guidelines because the only people that write about them are other clothing sites. I've wanted to write an article about one of my personal favorites, Fucking Awesome, but it's ridiculously difficult to find on Google (try it), and harder still to find write-ups about it, other than notes on forums or other shops. ] ] 07:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :: Does the BBC qualify as a legitimate source?--] 17:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC) | :: Does the BBC qualify as a legitimate source?--] 17:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' agree with alton, well put --< |
*'''Delete''' agree with alton, well put --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">''']''' ¤ ''']'''</span> 09:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep'''. I'm seeing multiple, third party sources. So what if they're all in his industry, they're not affiliated with the subject. He's made enough of a name for himself to be doing public galleries and interviews. That's good enough for me. --] 15:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | *'''Keep'''. I'm seeing multiple, third party sources. So what if they're all in his industry, they're not affiliated with the subject. He's made enough of a name for himself to be doing public galleries and interviews. That's good enough for me. --] 15:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep'''. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:45, August 27, 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | *'''Keep'''. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:45, August 27, 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
| *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>—] 15:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)</small> | *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>—] 15:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)</small> | ||
| *'''Delete''' The is not an independent source, it's a section of the BBC website that's user editable, nothing more than a forum. < |
*'''Delete''' The is not an independent source, it's a section of the BBC website that's user editable, nothing more than a forum. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">]<sub>'']''</sub></span> 18:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| **I'm sorry, but are we looking at the same page? It says some content is generated by members of the public. That's not the same as it being a forum or a wiki. Calling it "The BBC is kind of misleading, but it still looks like a valid source to me. Unless you want to show me where the edit button is. --] 19:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC) | **I'm sorry, but are we looking at the same page? It says some content is generated by members of the public. That's not the same as it being a forum or a wiki. Calling it "The BBC is kind of misleading, but it still looks like a valid source to me. Unless you want to show me where the edit button is. --] 19:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::*'''Comment''' Yes, we're looking at the same page. Sign up for membership, it's easy enough to write anything you want and claim to be anyone you want. < |
::*'''Comment''' Yes, we're looking at the same page. Sign up for membership, it's easy enough to write anything you want and claim to be anyone you want. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">]<sub>'']''</sub></span> 19:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::*Members of the public can contribute, but there is an editorial team and there is Collective editorial material: "All the editorial pages on Collective are written by writers selected by the Collective editorial team." The site commissions (as in, pays for) work from professional writers. On the review in question, it says "content by:editor" (as opposed to "content by:member"). ] 21:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC) | :::*Members of the public can contribute, but there is an editorial team and there is Collective editorial material: "All the editorial pages on Collective are written by writers selected by the Collective editorial team." The site commissions (as in, pays for) work from professional writers. On the review in question, it says "content by:editor" (as opposed to "content by:member"). ] 21:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 17:24, 18 February 2023
- 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 no consensus. CitiCat 13:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
D*Face
Marginal notability claims, if true. No independant sourcing of claims, and a recent, slow edit war over this artist's real name made me realize just how unreferenced this thing really is. But without sourcing, even the marginal notability claims (album covers and an exhibition) are not reliable. TexasAndroid 20:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete no reliable sources.--Sethacus 21:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 08:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete — Not Notable, or at least does not assert the notability in the article. Search engine result count is misleading, as * is a wildcard. :-) Stwalkerster talk 14:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:V and WP:N. Faithlessthewonderboy 00:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete 2 References Added, more on the way —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CespiT (talk • contribs) 14:03, August 23, 2007 (UTC).
- — CespiT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete; falls far from WP:BIO. — Coren 23:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Do Not Delete; the article falls within the WP:BIO specifications for Creative Professionals:
+The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors- ask any professional graffiti artist if they know about this man and his creations, and they do. +The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. - The creations and concept of art he has has never been seen before Also, under the guidelines for Entertainers, +Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following- You look at visible graffiti spots and you can find people already imitating his style. Also, the artist has several "toys" (3-d pieces) designed by him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CespiT (talk • contribs) 14:04, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
- Second !vote from this person. - TexasAndroid 14:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Do Not Delete; The main problem with the notability of this individual is that, since the individual chose a subversive method and medium for his expression, there is scarce note of him in mainstream sources. However, within the "underground" community that consciously consumes his creations, there is a huge awareness of his persona. People that do not consciously consume his creations, but are still subconsciously exposed to his images in their cities, will definitely notice his style, perhaps even recognize his characters. His work can be found in cities across the world (I have seen his work in New York City, Boston, Miami and London). These works, however, disappear in a few months, covered up. Misplaced Pages is here so these events can be documented, to give the people's side of the story. D*Face is a people's artist. Most of his work, we can appreciate for free. Since his work is so good, people are actually paying for it now. That in itself is an amazing achievement: turning criminal behavior into a profitable enterprise. This article could give so much inspiration to wayward youths, information to art aficionados, inspiration to artists. D*Face's article, as you can see, needs to be on here, Misplaced Pages, the encyclopedia written by the people for the people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CespiT (talk • contribs) 14:23, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
- Third !vote from this person. - TexasAndroid 14:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't know this was an election, I thought it was simply a discussion. I apologize for my impertinence. My intention is simply documenting subversive historical events which mainstream media refuses to acknowledge. How can I fix the damage I have done? - CespiT 14:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's why I called it a !vote (not vote) instead of a vote. You are welcome to make your case against deletion as well as you can. My problem was with the fact that you started three different sections with bolded Do Not Delete, making it look to a casual observer as if three different people were opposing the deletion. The final descision at the close of this will be made by the closer, and he/she will consider the strength of the arguments, as well as the numbers of people on each side. A single strong argument can trump a large number of unargued "blind votes", but if both sides have similarly strong arguments, then numbers can and do play a part. In the end though, it's up to the closer to interpret the proper outcome based on the debate. I just wanted to flag that there were not three people arging against the deletion, but (so far) only one, in case it did come down to numbers in the eyes of the closer. Make sense? - TexasAndroid 15:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Perfect sense. I am new to editing wikipedia, obviously I have a lot to learn. Thanks for clarifying, Tex.--CespiT 16:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- And I will say you have an interesting argument to make. I see paralels to the porn industry, which is notoriously hard to get reliable sources for as well, because similarly the porn industry is generally not even mentioned by the normal mainstream media. To the point when porn stars have their own notability requirements because of the unique nature of that business.
- Hmm. I don't really know, though. Without sourcing, anyone can claim anything, and there is no way to verify it. I started this AFD because people were changing D*Face's "real" name to several totally different versions, and there was really no way to verify any of them, nor to verify any of the other information in the article. I understand the difficult situation, and agree that he may very well be notable. But without any way to verify the article, it's hard to consider it anything more than a heap of unverified rumors.
- When you get down to it, WP:BLP comes in as well. Bios of Living Persons are supposed to be held to a higher standard than other articles. And this is a BLP article in question, even if only his handle is known for certain. WP:BLP requires even more stringent sourcing for bios. At this point, I don't really see how to make this article work, especially within the strictures of WP:BLP. - TexasAndroid 18:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Perfect sense. I am new to editing wikipedia, obviously I have a lot to learn. Thanks for clarifying, Tex.--CespiT 16:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's why I called it a !vote (not vote) instead of a vote. You are welcome to make your case against deletion as well as you can. My problem was with the fact that you started three different sections with bolded Do Not Delete, making it look to a casual observer as if three different people were opposing the deletion. The final descision at the close of this will be made by the closer, and he/she will consider the strength of the arguments, as well as the numbers of people on each side. A single strong argument can trump a large number of unargued "blind votes", but if both sides have similarly strong arguments, then numbers can and do play a part. In the end though, it's up to the closer to interpret the proper outcome based on the debate. I just wanted to flag that there were not three people arging against the deletion, but (so far) only one, in case it did come down to numbers in the eyes of the closer. Make sense? - TexasAndroid 15:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat 00:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per lack of coverage from independent reliable sources Corpx 04:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Corpx, would you qualify the BBC as an Independent Reliable source? --18.237.0.66 16:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, no independent attribution of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 05:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Dhartung, would you qualify the BBC as an Independent Reliable source? --18.237.0.66 16:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - the sources given may be legit, but as a more-than-usual esoteric topic it needs coverage from outside the inner circle. There are many clothing brand names that won't make the notability guidelines because the only people that write about them are other clothing sites. I've wanted to write an article about one of my personal favorites, Fucking Awesome, but it's ridiculously difficult to find on Google (try it), and harder still to find write-ups about it, other than notes on forums or other shops. ALTON .ıl 07:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Does the BBC qualify as a legitimate source?--CespiT 17:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete agree with alton, well put --Childzy ¤ Talk 09:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I'm seeing multiple, third party sources. So what if they're all in his industry, they're not affiliated with the subject. He's made enough of a name for himself to be doing public galleries and interviews. That's good enough for me. --UsaSatsui 15:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.V.E.i. (talk • contribs) 19:45, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 15:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The BBC reference is not an independent source, it's a section of the BBC website that's user editable, nothing more than a forum. One Night In Hackney303 18:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but are we looking at the same page? It says some content is generated by members of the public. That's not the same as it being a forum or a wiki. Calling it "The BBC is kind of misleading, but it still looks like a valid source to me. Unless you want to show me where the edit button is. --UsaSatsui 19:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, we're looking at the same page. Sign up for membership, it's easy enough to write anything you want and claim to be anyone you want. One Night In Hackney303 19:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Members of the public can contribute, but there is an editorial team and there is Collective editorial material: "All the editorial pages on Collective are written by writers selected by the Collective editorial team." The site commissions (as in, pays for) work from professional writers. On the review in question, it says "content by:editor" (as opposed to "content by:member"). Tyrenius 21:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Nothing in the article other than ad-type spam and unreliable sources. Article is more or less used as a userpage. Marcus22 18:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The main delete argument is lack of reliable sources. However, sources have been added since the nom. As I have pointed out, the BBC reference is not a blog, but an editorial page, actually written by the art editor of Dazed and Confused. Any argument that argues lack of reliable sources, but fails to address this, is effectively invalidated. The fact that editors who have contributed earlier have not returned to answer counter-arguments greatly weakens their position. This is not a vote. Pixelsurgeon.com and computerarts.co.uk also seem to be well-run and reliable websites. Tyrenius 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Totally agree with Tyrenius. Notable and relevant. Dfrg.msc 04:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The article is a mess right now, but there are enough sources to merit a nice clean stub. ˉˉ╦╩ 09:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment article is now cleaned up. Tyrenius 11:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Tyrenius. The article seems workable. - Modernist 12:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, Computer Arts interview is a good reliable source. --duncan 20:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Tyrenius & others, now it's improved. Johnbod 12:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for being thorough guys. I was taking the original criticisms personally and was losing faith in wikipedia. Give me tips on how to better this article and I will, just please be clear. I haven't had access to the internet the past week, that's why I haven't been able to work on it. ----CespiT 15:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well some of you guys sure have the blinkers on when it suits. The sources, like the exhibitions, are very very suspect. The article (or userpage) is about a non notable artist who has had no notable reviews and no notable shows. But who does drop notable names. And yet, somehow, because it's graffiti, thats ok. Dbl standards exist in Misplaced Pages as well as the 'real' world it seems. Ah well... thats life. Marcus22 20:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, what about the sources is suspect? I mean, they're not mainstream (except the BBC related one), but they're independent of the subject and appear reputable. Am I missing something? --UsaSatsui 21:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- The Computer Arts magazine interview isn't suspect. This is a magazine that's widely available in newsagents across the UK, and in their words is "the world’s best-selling magazine for digital artists and designers". --duncan 07:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- 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.