This is an old revision of this page, as edited by UsaSatsui (talk | contribs) at 15:14, 27 August 2007 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:14, 27 August 2007 by UsaSatsui (talk | contribs) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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).
- 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)
- Delete, no independent attribution of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 05:45, 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. ALTON .ıl 07:44, 27 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)