Articles for deletion / Wikipedia Art controversy

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

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination). When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. –>

The result was procedural close for reasons given below: this AFD appears to be an attempt to continue the controversy, so (if for no other reason than IAR) closing to reduce problems for the encyclopedia in general. Nyttend (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Wikipedia Art controversy

Hello there! I found your blog about a week or so ago, quite by accident. I was doing a Google secarh for some blog design tips. 🙂 What I was looking for was help in creating a custom navigation bar. With your tips and the one from The Creative Girl, I got it done!!! Woohoo 🙂 But I’m wanting to put each of my “tabs” closer together and am stumped as how to do that. Can you tell me how to do this?By the way, I’ve been reading thru your tips and they are SO easy to follow…most of them I had already implemented but there are several that I am going to try. Thank you so much for your easy to follow steps with pictures. It’s makes it much easier to figure out! Velmadownourcountryroad.blogspot.com

Posts like this brighetn up my day. Thanks for taking the time. (delete) – (View log)

non notable controversy. Hytje (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hytje (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{ #if: 23:11, 29 April 2009 | The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC).}}

  • Delete. Has not been covered in any reliable, published sources, as evidenced by Google and Google News searches for the article title.–Unscented (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

    • No opinion on the deletion, but that’s a horrible argument. The correct search is “Wikipedia Art”. —NE2 20:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

      • Oops. I guess that works better in some cases than in others. I’ll change my !vote to weak keep, as NE2 has revealed several sources, many of which might meet Wikipedia:WP:RS.–Unscented (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • undecided. There’s a lot of press, and not one of them is “unreliable” – many of them are in fact used as reliable sources throughout wikipedia (myartspace, rhizome, techdirt). it seems a standard for artists though is mainstream press, and we’ve not yet seen that. where i’m undecided is the fact that the “controversy” is only seen as the domain dispute. this whole thing, including the original page, is part of the “controversy.” i think the framing of it is biased. either delete it or cover the whole story. or put it on one of or both of the artists’ pages as a work. i say leave it up for a few weeks, just in case the mainstream does pick it up, and if it doesn’t, then delete and move it to Kildall and Stern’s pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.200.95 (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. It has been covered, a Google News search for wikipediaart.org brings up references and there are references in the article as well. As NE2 points out, Googling the title of the article in quotes is not the proper research tactic. If there are other good reasons to delete bring them forward but the nominating reason is fundamentally flawed. Drawn Some (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep for the exact same reason I declined the The forum is a birgther place thanks to your posts. Thanks! on this. To the “no reliable sources” guy above me, will repeated coverage in the press of five countries do for a start? – iridescent 22:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • KEEP This is ridiculous. Just because if doesn’t fit into someones little tidy view of the world doesn’t make it not noteworthy. What is going on here? Do the editors on Wikipedia just like to fight. I do not understand all the divisiveness.

    Sometimes trying to do something on here is impossible unless you make the few elite happy. Shamefull! Artintegrated (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep per Iridescent. It’s not ridiculous, though, Artintegrated: there are good reasons why editors shy away from Wikipedia articles about Wikipedia, and the tension between those who primarily create content and those who primarily destroy it is an effective mechanism for keeping our articles relevant and verifiable. It’s an evolutionary process that works well for us.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Changing to Merge – there is nothing to indicate that this article has reason to exist on its own. The sourced content can be merged to the articles about the people involved with this “controversy”. Should later events show that there is indeed substant enough coverage of a “controversy”, an article can be created then. — The Red Pen of Doom 22:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC) delete – at this point, it seems a pretty innocuous and trivial dispute no different than thousands of others entering the legal system every day. Should the legal points later prove to be significant in case law, THEN an article can be created. Wikipedia:WP:NOTNEWSThe Red Pen of Doom 23:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
    • That, on the other hand, is a ridiculous argument. This is not an article about case law, for god’s sake! This is a part of the History of Wikipedia series; the correct comparator would be Wikipedia:Siegenthaler incident or Wikipedia:Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia. – iridescent 23:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

      • I’m still somewhat undecided here, but I would point out that this is far less notable than those 2 articles; both of those have significant coverage in major mainstream and non-internet-only sources. This has so far only been covered in blogs and online sources. Mr.Z-man 23:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

        • Wikipedia:De Telegraaf has certainly covered it – it may not be showing up in Google as it’s in Dutch. – iridescent 23:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

          • Making case law is not the only reason to keep an article, but it would be ONE reason to keep it. If this “controversy” involved any organization other than Wikipedia it would have been laughed out with a speedy delete. This is a prime example of navel gazing self importance. — The Red Pen of Doom 23:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

            • You’re arguing against a straw man of your own construction. The actual argument for keeping, as already presented, is that the subject has received in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject — in other words: that it is notable, per Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Notability. You want to argue against it? Don’t construct straw men, and actually address the argument made. That argument is based upon assertions that there are multiple sources, that they have identifiable authors with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy, that they are independent of the subject, and that they document the subject in depth with more than a passing mention. Those are where any grounds for counterargument would be found. Uncle G (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

              • I dont see any straw man. If this “controversy” were something happening to Microsoft, or Ford or The United States Government or the Catholic Church instead of Wikipedia, this is no doubt in my mind that this article would have been speedy deleted as trivial. “Significant coverage in 3rd party sources” is a requirment for an article, but not the only requirement. Wikipedia:WP:NOTNEWSThe Red Pen of Doom 17:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

                • Then you need to read what you’ve written again. You’re the only one who has argued that this should be kept because of case law, and you raised that argument up merely in order to knock it back down. That is a canonical straw man.<p>You haven’t explained how any other policy actually applies, by the way. It’s no good just quoting abbreviations without explaining how the policy (not the abbreviation) actually applies to the case at hand. Uncle G (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

                  • And if this were about anyone other than Wikipedia? — The Red Pen of Doom 12:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Their site has a collation of news reports, which may be an easy way to find reliable sources on this story:[1]. It’s an interesting exercise: create a website potentially infringing on Wikipedia’s trademark, create a page about it on Wikipedia, blog about its deletion and start a controversy about Wikipedia apparently censoring art, gaining coverage enough to make the story notable… Fences and windows (talk) 04:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The issue at hand is someone using Wikipedia as a self promotional device.The Red Pen of Doom 12:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Iridescent. The self-reference objections are noted and well-considered, but the range of coverage in various sources tips this over the notability line in my view. — Seth Finkelstein (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, The issue is not the original article, but the effects that the article had and the additional discussion about the community. Additional press,http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/entertainment/44035017.html and is being published about in at least one scholarly journal and two book chapters in the coming months. [2]Patlichty (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

    • That article Patlichty links to above will apparently also appear in the Sunday print edition of the Wikipedia:Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. It concentrates more on the whole story than the domain dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.138.212 (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

      • I suggest that this article is actually a good place to write about the idea of the original page, as background – then that information serves a legitimate encyclopedic purpose. — Seth Finkelstein (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

        • I think the second paragraph already does this sufficiently to establish that part of the context. The major part of the context is the use of the domain, not the article on Wikipedia. The domain name dispute could just as easily have occurred without the Wikipedia article ever existing. —DanielRigal (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Undecided. As a domain name dispute it is so minor as to be laughable. It would be receiving no coverage at all if it wasn’t for the people involved hyping it and seeking to present it as something it isn’t. It seems that there is an attempt to use the domain name dispute as an excuse to reopen the argument about the rights and wrongs about the original deletion of the “Wikipedia Art” article (the one that was supposed to be an artwork in itself, rather than an encyclopaedia article and hence got deleted from this encyclopaedia for not being an encyclopaedia article). Domain name disputes are normally only notable if they get to court, and even then only if they are significant cases, but this seems to be picking up some limited RS coverage despite it being a complete non-story. The problem is that RS coverage is RS coverage. We can’t pick and choose which RS coverage can be used to reference an article just on the basis that we suspect it to be poor or trivial journalism. I am yet to be convinced that the coverage in RS sources is “significant”, as is required, but I can see that it is close.
    The other hurdle to overcome, which nobody has mentioned yet, is Wikipedia:WP:NOTNEWS. I am not sure whether this article falls foul of that or not. Maybe it is too early to say.
    Maybe there is a case to keep this article. After all, there are many other Wikipedia articles about subjects which are only notable because somebody chose to hype them and the RS press chose to allow itself to be hyped. We can tut and roll our eyes but we can’t sweep them all away. An encyclopaedia has to cover everything notable, including the shallower and more minor things to become noted in the world. This doesn’t bother me. What does bother me is that the article may be an ongoing source of disruption. (Note: I am not suggesting that this itself is a reason to delete.) It will need to be monitored closely to ensure that it stays on-topic (i.e. keeps to the domain name dispute), only relies on genuine RS references, does not give give undue, biased or promotional coverage of what remains a very minor matter. —DanielRigal (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Rather reluctant keep—on the one hand, I was not far behind Werdna in moving forward to close the debate on the original article—had he waited, I’d have closed it. The original article was, frankly, a circus kept up by people forgetting that we’re not for things made up one day in light of the apparent intellectualism, and I still feel we’re letting the artists troll us in their “intervention” piece. Sure, there was buzz generated, even from multiple reliable sources, but I still don’t like it: they’re using Wikipedia as a means of publicity, and that’s something that we try not to allow. On the other hand, this particular article is probably notable, though we should not confuse notability of the events with notability of the project itself. While I do not oppose deletion, I don’t think that’s the correct path in keeping with our principles. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 16:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict)
    • I agree. I would certainly like to apologise for the way I handled my part in that AfD. I do feel responsible for it turning into a circus and I feel very bad that I had a hand in something that may become an ongoing distraction from the real goal of Wikipedia, which is to build a free encyclopaedia for everybody to use, not to get bogged down in metadiscussion. —DanielRigal (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Close, as it appears to be a manipulation of Wikipedia to keep the controversy alive. The nominator’s contributions (account created 29 April) are only to create this afd and add [3] [4] notable Wikipedian tags to the creators of Wikipedia art. The article had also been created by an account (created 25 April) as the only edit. The whole thing is probably an intended manipulation of Wikipedia for whatever purpose, using sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Cenarium (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Well spotted. I had not noticed that connection. I agree that we are being jerked around, again. —DanielRigal (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
    • clarification I am Scott Kildall, one of the two creators (along with Nathaniel Stern) of the original Wikipedia Art project. I simply want to clarify that neither Nathaniel nor I had anything to do with the creation of this Wikipedia Art controversy page or the above mentioned edits, nor do we even know who made this page or started the Afd. Since there was some question of our motives, I thought it would be helpful to state this publicly. —Luckyscott 2009-04-30 18:40:31
  • First, I find this conversation confusing. Is this about keeping an encyclopedia or following the trail of people who you think have different motives than you? (And I’ll add that if this article was going to be a source of disruption, it would be NOW, with all the press, not later – and it seems to be doing just fine, no vandalism). The reason given above for deletion is notability, even though it ‘has RS, but not “significant” RS’. It now has that, too – and probably more to come if the Sentinel article is any indication – and the reason for deletion suddenly changes to who posted it?<p> Second, WHY WHY WHY does this page HAVE to be about the domain dispute, and WHY is DanielRigal pushing that over and over again? ALL the “significant” RS /News covers the piece of art / intervention just as much as the domain issue (in the Sentinel, more so). I can see the point that this page cannot and should not be “a work of art on Wikipedia.” But the story of that piece as an art intervention and performance – which includes the domain dispute – has already become very obviously significant, and CAN be written about in an encyclopedic way. Why don’t you just change the page to reflect the way the news actually talks about it, its actual significance, rather than what people here think (whether pro or con, artist or wikipedian), and then protect the page? The sensationalism referred to here, the case law blah blah blah is how the blogs which are not “significant” talk about. The holy grail of mainstream press has more to say, and it’s being ignored in this discussion.Artintegrated (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
    • False. It isn’t being ignored. Quite the contrary. It was addressed near to the beginning of the discussion — before your first contribution to it, in fact. Several articles were cited. Unscented, Iridescent, Drawn Some, NE2, S Marshall, Mr.Z-man, DanielRigal, and Nihiltres have all directly addressed the subject of the existence, depths, and provenances of sources. Uncle G (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep – This nomination is too early. Perhaps in a couple weeks we could actually determine whether NOT#NEWS applies, but sourcing alone is adequate for now. I would definitely oppose making the article about Wikipedia Art though. While the sources do cover it somewhat, they give just enough to provide background, as should our article; but the real story is the domain dispute. Mr.Z-man 21:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Content
It is really about the content of the articles outside of this discussion Artintegrated (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Procedural close per Cenarium. There’s enough manufactured coverage of the performance to maintain a five-paragraph article, for the time being. Ottre 12:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Procedural close. I will go along with Cenarium and Ottre. The case for deletion is not made but I would hate to see it afforded the dignity of a “keep” decision either. It makes sense to close this in a way that does not prejudice any future decisions. —DanielRigal (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

NOTE
There are many more KEEPS than Deletes. Please make a note of this. Artintegrated (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The number of keeps is not important, only the quality of the arguments. Please see Wikipedia:WP:NOTVOTE and the banner at the top of the page. We clearly have not reached a consensus to delete but the closing admin has a number of other options. They can choose the result as “keep”, “no consensus” or to close the discussion on various procedural grounds. The article gets kept either way. —DanielRigal (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment.”The number of keeps is not important, only the quality of the arguments.” This is a difficult argument to criticize without it seeming personal. However, this illustrates the key issues of the debate about the controversy, and the project in general once the community engaged with it.
    1: That Wikipedians have an arcane set of rules that sets up a nearly infinite scaffold of ad hoc provisions that allows for the deletion of content that does not fit the sensibility of the community, regardless of the noteworthiness of the content. It is no wonder that there is nearly %50 pop culture content in Wikipedia.
    2: “Quality of the Argument” – This has no possible objective criteria, and allows for any “qualified” Wikipedian to set those standards for “Quality”, like our 18-19 year old friend who invoked the Snowball Rule on WPA in the first place. At least Mr. Rigal is playing by some sense of fair play, although I do not agree with the position he is hinting at. Certainly, this is yet another argument for Andrew Keen’s assertions about the general untrustworthiness of Wikipedia, Web 2.0 and amateur culture, although I am both part of the cultures of the “expert” and of “expertise”. However, to say any more than this is to digress beyond the matter at hand far too much.
    In general, Wikipedia needs to keep this entry as a matter of integrity. —24.14.53.94 (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)–24.14.53.94 (talk) 12:58, 2 May 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.