Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public Art in Public Places: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Netherzone (talk | contribs) →Public Art in Public Places: add which user, not Natasha as in comment below |
→Public Art in Public Places: response by article author |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
***'''Comment''' - If the nom is accepted and the article deleted, where's the best place for that discussion? [[User:Barte|Barte]] ([[User talk:Barte|talk]]) 17:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC) |
***'''Comment''' - If the nom is accepted and the article deleted, where's the best place for that discussion? [[User:Barte|Barte]] ([[User talk:Barte|talk]]) 17:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC) |
||
**They [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/975140751?diffmode=source claimed] to have no affiliation. Some cleanup is probably warranted indeed. <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">[[User:Sdkb|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Sdkb'''</span>]]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>[[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']]</sup> 18:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC) |
**They [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/975140751?diffmode=source claimed] to have no affiliation. Some cleanup is probably warranted indeed. <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">[[User:Sdkb|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Sdkb'''</span>]]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>[[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']]</sup> 18:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''' - After searching online, I could not find anything except social media |
*'''Delete''' - After searching online, I could not find anything except social media sutyetch as Pinterest "pins", Facebook postings, and a LinkedIn entry. The articles in the references are on the artist's works, not on the organization itself, and notability is [[WP:NOTINHERITED]] from the artists whose works are in their database. Fails [[WP:NCORP]] criteria. [[User:Netherzone|Netherzone]] ([[User talk:Netherzone|talk]]) 17:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''' Fellow editors: As the author of the WP article on this organization, and after considering your views here, please allow me to weigh in. I reluctantly must agree with Barte that he has indeed been correct that additional citations/sources have unfortunately not materialized in the past 2 years. Absent such, no, this org. article does not yet meet WP notability. Let me say, however, that I believe the long-standing Notability banner flagging this article may very well have discouraged any media attention - Wikipedia is that influential - so I can see Mr. Williamson's (org.'s director) concern with the tacitly negative impact to the org's reputation. I also note what I must defend as unfounded concern about my and others' contributions of various references by Public Art in Public Places in articles on public artworks. I would challenge you to focus on the validity and relevance of these references, keeping in mind that this org is a public archive, akin to the Smithsonian's Save Outdoor Sculptures archive - it is WP that benefits from this data, the org is non-profit, non-commercial, the archive is active, free & open, accurate. As I have reiterated to two of you here, I highly esteem this archive as a public benefit, but I have no connection whatsoever with the org or their staff. In sum, please grant me the respect of a conscientious and well-intentioned colleague, and in the interest of fairness to this org I'd support a speedy deletion of the WP org article. Respectfully, [[User:Natasha Behrendt|TashaB]] ([[User talk:Natasha Behrendt|talk]]) 17:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 17:23, 4 September 2020
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Public Art in Public Places (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:ORG. The article has been tagged for notability since Nov. 2018, and other than one sentence (see Talk:Public Art in Public Places), I can't find any coverage whatsoever.
What has changed is the number of Wikipedia entries that now mention the organization I count 80. Barte (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC) Barte (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Barte (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 2. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 15:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - fails WP:ORG, only passing mentions in articles about other topics. No significant coverage. - Ahunt (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete nothing appears to have changed since I originally raised concerns about its notability. signed, Rosguill talk 16:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per above. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - it is curious that the editor who has been adding all those links to the organization to articles, happens to have the same name as the organization's director. Netherzone (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC) This user K. M. Williamson . Netherzone (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - I think once this discussion is complete that issue needs to be addressed. - Ahunt (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - If the nom is accepted and the article deleted, where's the best place for that discussion? Barte (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- They claimed to have no affiliation. Some cleanup is probably warranted indeed. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - I think once this discussion is complete that issue needs to be addressed. - Ahunt (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - After searching online, I could not find anything except social media sutyetch as Pinterest "pins", Facebook postings, and a LinkedIn entry. The articles in the references are on the artist's works, not on the organization itself, and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from the artists whose works are in their database. Fails WP:NCORP criteria. Netherzone (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Fellow editors: As the author of the WP article on this organization, and after considering your views here, please allow me to weigh in. I reluctantly must agree with Barte that he has indeed been correct that additional citations/sources have unfortunately not materialized in the past 2 years. Absent such, no, this org. article does not yet meet WP notability. Let me say, however, that I believe the long-standing Notability banner flagging this article may very well have discouraged any media attention - Wikipedia is that influential - so I can see Mr. Williamson's (org.'s director) concern with the tacitly negative impact to the org's reputation. I also note what I must defend as unfounded concern about my and others' contributions of various references by Public Art in Public Places in articles on public artworks. I would challenge you to focus on the validity and relevance of these references, keeping in mind that this org is a public archive, akin to the Smithsonian's Save Outdoor Sculptures archive - it is WP that benefits from this data, the org is non-profit, non-commercial, the archive is active, free & open, accurate. As I have reiterated to two of you here, I highly esteem this archive as a public benefit, but I have no connection whatsoever with the org or their staff. In sum, please grant me the respect of a conscientious and well-intentioned colleague, and in the interest of fairness to this org I'd support a speedy deletion of the WP org article. Respectfully, TashaB (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)