Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Art

From Wikipedia Art

Jump to: navigation, search

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikipedia_Art. Note that this page has been auto-modified so as to have link-backs directly to Wikipedia, and not this Wiki.

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.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Art

This is an attempt to use Wikipedia as an "art platform". It is not encyclopaedic. It can never be encyclopaedic by its very nature. It can't be referenced to anything other than itself because it is an original work based on Wikipedia. These guys need to get themselves their own Wiki and host this there. It also seems to be part of a walled garden of suspicious articles about the artists themselves (Wikipedia:Scott Kildall, Wikipedia:Nathaniel Stern, and Wikipedia:Brian Sherwin). It seems that they have accounts and edit these themselves. They may, or may not, be significantly notable outside of their own circle and may, or may not, have inflated their importance in their articles. I think it needs looking at. DanielRigal (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment Whether these people do simple edits on their own pages in no way invalidates what they have said here. If something is true then it should stay in the article regardless. Did you know this article is already referenced at The Whole 9 http://thewhole9.com/blogs/applestooranges/ just today. I feel that your idea that it can only reference itself is unfounded at this point. :Artintegrated (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • KEEP(Who changed my shouted keep?) You cannot do that once I sign it. This is against Wiki policy.Artintegrated (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC) I think this is something that is imporatnt. Why cant Wikipedia be a form of art too. I don't understand how someone who edits Wikipedia would not want their edit or "performative utterances" to be considered art. Artintegrated (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • First up, the fact that the people write their own articles is a big problem because they lack objectivity. Secondly, you can't have a circular chain of references. You can't reference Wikipedia from a non-RS blog that itself references Wikipedia. By that logic, any information replicated on two different websites and referencing eachother would be gospel truth. Referencing does not work like that. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm for giving this article time to improve. It's an interesting concept, though it needs better sourcing. --TS 21:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment:"the fact that the people write their own articles is a big problem because they lack objectivity" It seems to me that everyone writes their own articles on Wikipedia and there is no such thing as objectivity in Wikipedia. That is the whole point-- it is inherently subjective.Shane Mecklenburger (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Please read the article carefully and see that it can't possibly improve to become a valid Wikipedia article. It is an article about itself. It is intrinsically unencyclopaedic. I don't think it was necessarily created in bad faith but it is an abuse of Wikipedia to seek to use it as an art platform and it undermines Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only fractionally better than any MADEUP topic. Created very recently. Also a totally confused concept - a collaborative art project - fine. But trying to do it on one Wikipedia page - you must be joking mate! We also have an avoid self-reference rule. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • This sort of artwork already has strong precedents in history - the Surrealists' Exquisite Corpse, Debord's idea of Situationist detournement, and although I am not part of this collective, I fully intend to include it as part of my chapter for the upcoming book of distributed writing commissioned by Turbulence.org, and it will be mentioned as part of my talk on new art practices at a guest lecture at Denver University on 2/16/09, and I have already written on it on my critical blog in London. Therefore, the reference is to the emergence of the concept, which now exists outside Wikipedia, and is paradoxical but not solipsistic. I think that the person suggesting the idea of letting the idea grow is well-reasoned, and a time for review (say, 90 days) could be set for re-evaluation.--24.14.54.88 (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)--TS
  • Comment: Please note that, transgressive though they were, the Surrealists played "exquisite corpses" using their own notepaper. They did not try to scrawl it the margins of a library book. This is the problem. Nobody objects to a Wiki based artwork. The problem is that it can't be inserted into Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not just a Wiki. It is an encyclopedia. It is no more appropriate to add non-encyclopaedic content here than it is to write stuff in library books. I have refrained from using the term "vandalism" because I think this is all a big misunderstanding rather than a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. None the less, that is the effect it is having. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would very much beg to differ on the point of the Surrealists. Dali would lay in traffic, Artaud organized a riot aginst Dulac's first screening of the Clergyman and the Seashell. If the Surrealists would have found it "appropriate" for the message, I am absolutely sure they would have done Corpses in the library. The way I see it, if it gets pulled, it will become by definition a case for reinsertion as an "event" in New Media art history. However, I know the project is being watched by a number of curators with great interest.--Patlichty (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - an interesting concept, but not suitable here: this is an encyclopedia, not a web-host for this sort of project. Find some other Wiki to do it on. JohnCD (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Out of scope as a project, completely lacking in evident notability as a concept. Powers T 22:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Addition to the nomination: OK. Now I am really confused. They have a Wiki of their own at: wikipediaart.org, which has the same content as the Wikipedia article we are discussing here. I am not sure how the two are meant to relate to eachother but it may be that they are confused as to the difference between a Wikipedia:Wiki and Wikipedia. I am not sure which site they are proposing to be the actual art work. If it is the Wikipedia article then all I have said above is correct. If it is their own Wiki then the circularity is broken and the article in not intrinsically unencyclopaedic. In that case I would like to add the following alternative reasons to delete the article: Lack of notability and lack of RS references. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: the page at wikipediaart.org is not a wiki - it's just an advert or pointer to this one. It's clear that it's here they intend the "art" to happen. JohnCD (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Correction: Sorry. I got their link wrong. They do have a Wiki at: http://wikipediaart.org/wiki/. That said, I think you are almost certainly right. I just wanted to be fair to them and to everybody here by giving the whole picture. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete This could never be properly sourced, as it could only exist here first before it could ever be written about in order for it to be notable enough to be mentioned here. Yes, an interesting paradox, but that's not our problem. We can only go by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and it's pretty clear that this needs to be deleted. But here's an idea: the fact that this was attempted and subsequently deleted could possibly generate enough third-party coverage to make the initial project notable enough to be included (at least as part of the artists' articles). But until then, it cannot stay. It's not encyclopedic as an entirely self-referential article. freshacconci talktalk 22:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep For whatever reason, I think this is a viable vehicle for Wikipedia. Performative utterances actually has a nice ring to it. OneMarkus (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. This does not make any sense: it is an article about itself. I think the article is a Wikipedia:breaching experiment. As a side note, that website, wikipediaart.org, is most likely infringing on the Wikimedia Foundation's copyright on the name Wikipedia. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • So, if you are right, that means that they probably regard this AfD as the real artwork? Oh joy. I think you are right about the copyright/trademark on "Wikipedia" but I was assuming (hoping) that it was a legitimate misunderstanding between Wiki (which anybody can use) and Wikipedia. I really hope that this does not turn out to have been a bad faith exercise from the outset. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I had not thought of it that way, but you may be right about this AFD being the "artwork". A breaching experiment does attempt to measure reactions to the experiment. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 23:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, this discussion is the most interesting part of the work by far. And it has a built-in narrative structure to it-- how will it turn out? Kept or Deleted?Shane Mecklenburger (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • delete This does not fit Wikipedia. DanielRigal, I don't understand why you flagged the Wikipedia:Brian Sherwin bio over this unless you have a beef with him. Did you even read the bio or the prior deletion debates? I've cited his interviews to help improve visual art bios on wikipedia because consensus has been that he is notable twice. Should I stop? Should we flag every writer and art critic if we don't agree with something they write about? I read the Sherwin article about this and it does not look like he was a part of it aside from posting about it after one of the two contacted him. The article clearly says that it is a project by Stern and Kildall. So why did you flag the Sherwin bio? Artblogs (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • 'Comment: the flags on the authors of the Wikipedia Art article are unwarranted - Kildall is a gradute of the Art Institute of Chicago, and well exhibited, I am not familiar with Biran per se, and I wrote a term paper in part about Nathaniel's work during my MFA studies on African Computer Art in the mid 2000's. These are legitimate people, and their pages are justified, and only justifiable criticism maybe citations or formatting.--Patlichty (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • 'Comment: Well, right - "legitimate" is not the proper word. However, all three have substantial records, and if it takes an exxternal scholar to go over their records, then we can set that up.User:Patlichty|Patlichty]] (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with this AfD. I have replied on your talk page. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The Wikipedia Art page is something that explains art, explores art, and is art all at the same time. Deleting this page would be a statement that the Wikipedia:exegesis of Wikipedia:conceptual art and/or Wikipedia:new media art has no place in Wikipedia, except on the tired, lifeless, and opaque Wikipedia:conceptual art and Wikipedia:new media art pages. Why shouldn't a tiny corner of Wikipedia-brand collective Wikipedia:epistemology be preserved for an instructive, self-referential, and ever-changing living example of what an art object can be in the 21st Century? Should this page be judged invalid only because it refers to itself? The Wikipedia:Wikipedia Art page is a self-aware example of Wikipedia's mission of collective Wikipedia:epistemology. It enacts and exposes Wikipedia's own strengths, weaknesses, potential, and limits as a system of understanding and as a Wikipedia:contemplative object of Wikipedia:beauty. The page is also a self-aware example of the strengths, weaknesses, potential, and limits of Wikipedia:new media art as a an object of contemplation. Wikipedia:New media art has demonstrated that the boundaries between Wikipedia:art and every other discipline from Wikipedia:epistemology to Wikipedia:microbiology have disintegrated (see Wikipedia:interdisciplinarity) in the 21st Century. This page shows how a Wikipedia page can go beyond simply existing as a Wikipedia page, while retaining its basic Wikipedia:utilitarian Wikipedia function. Those who care most about Wikipedia's mission would probably agree that Wikipedia already is a collaborative art form. If you feel that Wikipedia is a beautiful thing, then at some level (whether or not you admit it) you consider Wikipedia an art form, with its own codes and conventions. This artwork can only exist as a Wikipedia page that refers to itself. Therefore, deleting would not only send the message "this is not Wikipedia"; it would also be saying "this is not art." comment added by Shmeck (talk • contribs) 00:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
    • The above is a wonderful commentary, but Wikipedia is not your web page to wax eloquently about what you think ought to exist. Bus stop (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment: Thanks, but isn't that what everyone is doing here? Talking about what ought to exist on Wikipedia? You haven't addressed a single one of my points.Shane Mecklenburger (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
        • No, I haven't addressed your points. The subject of the discussion is whether to delete the article or not, not whether or not you feel that Wikipedia should have an article containing the qualities that you feel the "Wikipedia Art" article might be capable of containing. Ostensibly the points and the subject matter of your defense of the "Wikipedia Art" article is what would be discussed and debated in the article itself, if it existed. That might be an interesting discussion; then again that might not be an interesting discussion. But I don't think we have to assume the article exists in order to discuss whether or not to delete it. I think we can separate those two discussions. Bus stop (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
            • I beg to differ. My contribution was meant to raise awareness of the larger context in which a decision to delete or keep the article is taking place. Having read the comments above, I saw they did not reflect an understanding of what's at stake in a decision to delete or keep the article. Either decision would say a great deal about both Wikipedia and whether/how it distinguishes between collaborative knowledge and collaborative art, at a time when that boundary is quickly evaporating (see MIT's Artist-In-Residence program). Awareness of these matters is essential to the discussion.Shane Mecklenburger (talk) 01:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
              • I disagree. The only thing at stake is Wikipedia's integrity as an encyclopaedia. The rest is stuff that we simply take no view on. If something is deleted it is because it is inappropriate to Wikipedia. It is not a comment on its wider worth. Nothing will be lost if the article is deleted. The authors can request a copy to be emailed to them and they can put it up again on another site. This is not censorship. This is not against art. It is just housekeeping. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
                • Yes, but according to whose definition of Wikipedia's "integrity as an encyclopedia"? Yours? Forgive me, but you don't seem receptive to the range of opinions in this discussion arguing quite cogently for a more open definition. According to the Wikipedia entry, an Wikipedia:encyclopedia is "a comprehensive written compendium that holds information."Shane Mecklenburger (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a web host for collaborative art projects. Previous discussions about sourcing are beside the point, because this is an art project, and art projects are not allowed in article space. Baileypalblue (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: What exactly distinguishes a collaborative art project from a collaborative article?
      • I think it should be obvious that an article is an attempt to objectively capture the facts about a subject and that art is a subjective attempt to say something original about something. Given that Wikipedia is for objectivity and against original research it really is an incredibility inappropriate place to seek to make art. I see the attraction of the Wiki engine for collaborative art, but they can (and indeed already have) start their own Wiki for that. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
        • With all due respect, both the hard sciences, the humanities, and journalism have fully rejected the idea of objectivity. There is no such thing, and Wikipedia is a perfect example of a perfectly subjective (if collaborative) encyclopedia. Similarly, originality has been rejected by art. There is no such thing. It's all just different forms of appropriation. So it seems to me that Wikipedia is a perfect place to expose the current state of affairs.Shane Mecklenburger (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Do you have a source for the notion that originality has been rejected by art? Are there any countervailing views? Bus stop (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
            • Yes: Andy Warhol, Marcel Duchamp, Roy Lichtenstein, Michelangelo, Leonardo daVinci. It's all copying and pasting. The only difference is that now artists are self-aware about it.Shane Mecklenburger (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
            • I don't think it is productive to discuss this. I now regret giving it an opening as it isn't relevant here. (This is what I get for trying to be helpful.) Some people reject the concept of encyclopaedic knowledge. That is their choice but I don't see any reason for a person of that view to hang out on an encyclopaedia. This sort of stuff gets discussed interminably by philosophers. We are not going to get anywhere with it here. Lets let it drop. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Recap: I think we have an unusual situation here in two ways. First up there are a lot of people here who do not normally "do" AfDs. Secondly, there is a real, and I believe honest, failure of those who want to keep the article to understand the fundamental nature of the problem, or of Wikipedia itself. I don't want to be patronising but lets quickly recap Wikipedia 101: The five pillars of Wikipedia explains what Wikipedia is, isn't and also how it is run. Almost everything of importance is linked from there but I would specifically like to mention notability, verifiability, reliable sources, no original research and, last but not least, do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: The Wikipedia Art page satisfies every one of those requirements. I also don't wish to be patronizing, but I believe there is a real, honest failure of those who want to delete the article to understand the fundamental nature of the problem-- which is how narrowly you choose to define knowledge, art, verifiability, original research, and disruption.Shane Mecklenburger (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
      • You are discussing what would be the content of the article if it existed. This discussion concerns itself with whether or not such an article should exist. There is a distinction, in my opinion. Bus stop (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm in favor of the idea and rationale of Wikipedia Art. I vote YES for the continuation of the project. -mjm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkewi53207 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: There are several questions here - One is the letter of the law, which is not always enforced here.

First, notability - as a media studies and New Media Art professor & curator, I find this missive "Highly" notable, for obvious reasons. This is a great project, either way it's resolved. It has also been picked up for discussion in at least one scholarly publication in this first day.
Secondly, verifiability - there external resources on the issue, and it is alrady in discussion in the greater community. I think the issue might be whether the site or the entry is the art, which has not been resolved.
Reliable Sources: there are two blogs, an installation, and a developing discussion on a 10,000 person listserv (Rhizome). I'm sure that this will be undeniably resolved to Wikipedia standards soon.
No Original Research: This might be the weakest leg in that much of it was written by the progenitors, but if needed, objective scholars can be asked to render their thoughts as well.
Don't Garfinkel the WIKI (DGtW); That's a bit gray, again on terms as to whether the site or the entry is the "art". In my opinion, the decision will likely be much clearer after a period of time (as stated before, 90 days, and probably minimum of 30).
--Patlichty (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

    • I am disappointed to read this after my heartfelt plea on your talk page. Notability is not something that you can simply declare because you are a prof. We ask for reliable sources and you give us blogs. We complain of original research and you seek so remedy it by soliciting yet more original research. I would have expected better. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Proposal: Although there are a lot of people who want this article kept I believe that everybody above who has evaluated the matter within the scope of the actual policies has decided to delete it. It is also clear that the article is disruptive and that the deletion discussion has played out and is becoming repetitive and branching off into general discussion. I propose that we close this as delete. Any admins with me on this? --DanielRigal (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Let's not make it wikipedia editors jobs to determine what is art. The 3 authors are established artists and they have said it is art - that's really the end of the story. However, after that it is up to the rest of us to determine if it is good and/or worthwhile art. For that, let's use the 5 pillars of wikipedia. Notability - has been established. It's been written about in several places, there is a RL lecture discussing it, a curator has vouched for it. Compared with many other wikipedia articles which have no question of notability (for example, minor fictional characters from television shows, decade old chipsets, and manufacturers of Dungeons and Dragons miniature figurines) I'd say this met the established standard easily. Verifiability - the page exists and we've all seen it. No one has questioned whether or not it is being discussed on other sites or at academic lectures. Reliable sources - The authors created the page. The content of the page is the work of art itself, and it describes itself. Again, this doesn't appear to be an issue because Verifiablity isn't in question. No original research - none is necessary. We know all we need to know. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point - this may be the closest call. While I understand why this is an issue, I don't think the artists are disrupting wikipedia to create a point. Their purpose is to create an artwork. The point it makes is secondary and the disruption is a side effect. Again, there's plenty of room on wikipedia for this. It's of interest. The more you make a stink about it, the stronger the case becomes. Let it go. DanielRigal - I think you feel too strongly about this and should cool off. With all due respect, Daniel, you may be projecting here. Please take your own advice. There is a very rational and relevant discussion happening here, and you appear to be trying to fast-track it into a deletion, perhaps out of unwillingness to consider differing points of view. Again, no offense, but you have been quite dismissive of the excellent points being raised here.Shane Mecklenburger (talk) 02:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Proposal - freeze edits for 1 week. --Dronthego (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I think it is in violation of the spirit of Wikipedia:WP:SOAPBOX. So far, all we've heard is point of view pushing, in support of this article. That is acceptable in a work of art (maybe); it is far less acceptable in a Wikipedia article, ideally. Bus stop (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Are you going to explain why you don't think edits should be frozen and why there's shouldn't be a cool off period for this article? Bus stop What harm comes from waiting 1 week? --Dronthego (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Dronthego -- I said nothing about whether or not edits should be frozen. The article's existence is dependent upon the article's existence. That is the premise upon which the initiating editors created this article. Many articles are deleted, in the visual arts, for failing to meet basic Wikipedia requirements. Do you think all articles in the visual arts that have been deleted in, say, the past 90 days should be reinstated, or just this article? Bus stop (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
          • We generally don't "freeze" a deletion discussion just cause it gets heated. For all the steamed-up people here there are many more cool-headed Wikipedians who can carry on constructive discussion. Anyone who feels like it may continue bickering. The outcome will still be determined fairly. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:48, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
            • Fair enough, but I didn't mean this discussion page, I mean the article. --Dronthego (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
              • You want to freeze the article because this discussion has gotten heated? I don't see what that would accomplish. Even if that article were frozen, this discussion would still close at the same time, generally 5 days after it started. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:04, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - G1, G2, G3, or G11 - Take your pick. How about simply not notable, vandalism, hoax, etc? Whether it can be considered art or not is irrelevant. Wikipedia ain't your canvas. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:22, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
    • But you saying Wikipedia:Jimmy Wales has a hidden profile on that Facebook Wikipedia Art fan page undermines your neutrality and this in fact could sway someone from voting to keep rather than delete this page. Its the swaying part not just misstating facts that bothers me. Artintegrated (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I've responded to this allegation extensively below. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:12, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - actually Wikipedia is our canvas; as it states in its byline, "anyone can edit"; and it has been promoted on this premise - that it is the collective work of innumerable individuals. This is a valuable article if just because of the interesting discussion on this page, but also because it is interrogating the nature of user-generated content, and the ability of artists to transform even the most pedestrian platform into something that comments and provokes. Frock (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, anyone can edit. No guarantee that your edit will stick, though. All edits can also be reversed and deleted. Goes both ways, you see. So if you want to say Wikipedia is your temporary canvas, until someone notices what you did, then sure, it's your canvas. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:12, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
    • comment Has an art project like his happened on Wikipedia before? Did Stern and Kidall break new ground or were they inspired by past "projects"? Artblogs (talk) 02:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
      • If it has happened before, it's also been deleted before, rather quickly. Generally articles like this are speedy-deleted without the need for discussion, but in this case someone nominated it for discussion instead, so here we are. It'll still get deleted in the end, as it violates pretty much every rule we have here. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:30, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete of course. Doesn't even pass the "amusing hoax" test. - DavidWBrooks 02:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment One of the reasons I feel this discussion is viable is that it is one of those either/or situations. I dont see how an administrator can call for the AfD to be closed and the page deleted within the first couple hours of its creation. This is way too soon in the process for this to happen unless the person who put it up for deletion is afraid that those of us who support the article will ultimately see the page remain.
  • On Facebook there is a fan page for this article "Wikipedia Art" and the founder himself Wikipedia:Jimmy Wales just joined this Facebook page. Will this added bit of information help keep this article? This is what I question here. This should in no way be EGO driven. It is what it is. Artintegrated (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment This "article" seems designed to violate as many of our basic policies as possible. Linking every word? Signatures in article space? Ridiculous amounts of self-referencing? An article that is about nothing but itself? It is absurd. That's art for you; some people will always find it absurd. But Wikipedia is not a repository or venue for art experiments. We eliminate graffiti when we find it, and that's all this is. Powers T 02:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Where exactly do you draw the line between graffiti and a Wikipedia entry? How is Wikipedia not a publicly moderated graffiti forum with conventions and guidelines for graffiti?Shane Mecklenburger (talk) 05:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment/Keep As I've seen the new "Context" section put forth, and not by any of the artists, I think the article is MUCH more solid, is more grounded in external art historical references, and all around more grounded as an "article" per se. There the piece was truly solipsistic in the beginning, and probably fated for swift deletion, I think that comments by people like Frock, the new edits, and the development of the article over such a short amount of time shows its potential. In addition, I move that before deletion, we really should get someone in who's edited the New Media/Tech Art pages. If they're here, please chime in, and state you've been editing there.--Patlichty (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
    • None of the new material added to the article is germane to this discussion, because none of it addresses the two reasons for deletion: none of it demonstrates reliable source coverage of this art project, and none of it changes the fact that art projects are not allowed in article space. Baileypalblue (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Userfy the first edit to Wikipedia:User:Artintegrated/Wikipedia Art then delete the rest. If sufficient reliable sources exist and it meets notability requirements, allow creation of a new page under the same name about the February 14, 2009 art experiment. Blogs and mailing lists are generally insufficient to establish notability, but if an art journal, newspaper, or a WP:RS art magazine writes about this, then an article about this experiment is acceptable. Inform user he has a fixed time limit to save his work then delete it as inappropriate use of user space. I recommend a week. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Interesting thought. Perhaps that is the whole point of this page, to provoke a such a discussion of this article, on- and off-Wiki, that the controversy itself becomes notable. Authors, are you reading this? Is that your purpose? •••Life of Riley (T–C) 03:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
    • That's a very fair-minded proposal, but I don't think it's a good idea. It would mean going through another deletion discussion starting a week from now, fanning the flames of controversy just after they've died down. As suggested earlier in this discussion, if reliable source coverage develops to justify an article on this subject, an administrator can then offer the page creator access to the deleted versions of the article for recreation of an encyclopedic article. Baileypalblue (talk) 04:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Based on this theory, every page on WIkipedia is art. In terms of an article, I think deletion is in order here, however this might be an interesting concept to explore in project space, that's usually where we do our navel-gazing. FWIW: This isn't the first time someone has made art out of Wikipedia, at one point some fellow thought our deletion logs could be used for art. He created a website & tool to gather the log info for his project. This project may still be active somewhere, although I suspect we've taken the joy out of it now that most of our deletions contain policy related summaries rather than the first sentence or two from the article. --Versageek 03:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Move to project space or if not, user space, and then if the sources are specific and substantial enough, consider a shorter article about this in mainspace. .DGG (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Could you elaborate on the rationale of moving to project space? I'm under the impression that project space is for projects that directly involve improving the encyclopedia or its accessibility. What does this do in that capacity? Equazcion •✗/C • 03:53, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is not what Wikipedia is for (see Wikipedia:WP:NOT). As an article, it fails the notability test. If anyone wants to write a well-sourced article about Wikipedia:internet art as applied to wikis, be my guest, but this isn't it. Robofish (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't think it's a good idea to move this project to user space or any other space. If this art project is, as has been suggested, a Wikipedia:breaching experiment, if it is, as has been suggested, an attempt to generate controversy to justify the experiment's own existence, then I don't see how the encyclopedia will benefit from continuing to maintain it. I retain my original opinion that this project is an attempt to use the resources of Wikipedia for purposes separate from the intended purpose of building an encyclopedia, and if that's the case, then Wikipedia should not maintain it anywhere. Baileypalblue (talk) 04:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I added this article today at around 3:15. I felt that it would absolutely pass the test and remain here on Wikipedia. Already though several of the "Delete people" have gone and changed edits on Kildall's page here and one said that Wikipedia:Jimmy Wales has his profile hidden on a Facebook site and I showed the link to make sure people knew this was an incorrect statement and even Equazcion said it was a mistake on his discussion page but he didn't include that on here bringing into question the neutrality that is supposed to be the best of Wikipedia. I also know about some overreaching into past edits that seem very underhanded. Lets be bigger than that on here. Integrity is Wikipedia's best policy. Andy Warhol, himself said art is anything you can get away with. That said, lets do the right thing here. Artintegrated (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh no no no sir, I did not say that at all. I said that the person who claims to be Jimmy Wales that you've got in your group is in fact not the real Jimmy Wales. You continue to misunderstand me. I gave you this link to the actual Jimmy wales page. This is not the same member you have in your facebook group.Equazcion •✗/C • 04:50, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
        • My five mutual friends of his say it is him. Why should they tell me something that is an untruth. Most dont even know about this Wikipedia Art page or the AfD here or I should just take your word without a basis to stand on? Artintegrated (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Your friends told you so? That's your argument? Look: No one's asking you to take my word for it. Since Jimmy Wales on a Facebook group for fans of the page we're considering for deletion has no bearing whatsoever on said deletion, there's no way I could possibly care less. I told you as much on my talk page but you asked me to continue anyway, and I did. I'm sorry if you're unsatisfied with the outcome. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:56, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
            • If you could care less why are you even on here????Artintegrated (talk) 04:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
              • I care about the deletion discussion. I don't care about your facebook argument. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:00, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
                • Then lets only state facts on this AfD since you say you do care about it. Artintegrated (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
                  • This is a matter of opinion, not fact. I've stated my opinion, and you've stated yours. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:16, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
      • Do you mean Wikipedia:Andy Warhol, the Wikipedian? Bus stop (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia:WP:OR, Wikipedia:WP:SOAPBOX, not notable, no reliable sources except one blog, trying to use wikipedia for something other than writing an encyclopedia.... why are we even having this discussion? --Enric Naval (talk) 05:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Because the nominator accidentally chose AfD instead of CSD, a decision for which he is very remorseful. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:30, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
      • lol. He has certainly learned his lesson. Oh, well, I don't think that there is much problem with leaving this open until the time limit. Just don't pay them much attention. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Ah, Equazcion, that's the best comment yet in this discussion! I got a huge laugh out of that one! Daniel, are you ruing the day you made this nomination? •••Life of Riley (T–C) 06:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: If the article IS the artwork, then it is a primary source and furthermore pretty much cannot have an NPOV by definition. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and we must maintain NPOV. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: And just in case, salt too. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per Wikipedia:WP:OR, Wikipedia:WP:NEO, Wikipedia:WP:SOAPBOX, Wikipedia:WP:NFT, Wikipedia:WP:V, Wikipedia:WP:N and quite a few others. The self-referential citations alone point to how non-notable this concept is. Simply put, if this is a concept for collaboration people wish to try, put it in the Wikipedia namespace. It flat out does not belong in article space. Resolute 06:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, the only verifiability or notability here is self-referential, and that's the only way this article can and will be. This definitely shouldn't be namespace moved either, it belongs in a different Wiki altogether; this one is a collaborative encyclopedia, not a collaborative art project. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd be very against a namespace change as well. Wikipedia space is for collaborations that aim to improve the encyclopedia, not for just any collaboration a group of people want to try. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:22, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
  • Touche. I doubt it would survive an MfD either. Resolute 06:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable, self-referential mess. Tried by others, and deleted. Kill kill kill. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 06:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. As the contributor of ten percent of Wikipedia's featured pictures and twenty percent of its featured sounds, assuring fellow editors that this can be safely deleted. Most of the citations fail Wikipedia:WP:RS and the rest fail Wikipedia:WP:NOR. 'Wikipedia Art' as such does not exist in any way that merits an article. And serious efforts toward building a collaborative media restoration undertaking would only be undermined by the existence of such a page as this. DurovaCharge! 06:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedily deleted. No indication that the content may meet our criteria for inclusion. — Werdna • talk 06:32, 15 February 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "http://wikipediaart.org/wiki/index.php?title=Articles_for_deletion/Wikipedia_Art"
Personal tools