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 procedural close, optional relist. Seriously, no concensus had or was ever going to form out of this, given the different levels of development the articles are at. The closest thing to concensus I found in this debate after reading it a couple of times was that these artists would require separate AfD's if anything like concensus was to be formed to delete. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 10:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian (street artist)[edit]

This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts Tyrenius 01:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Delete No substantiated claim to notability Marcus22 13:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Bus stop 16:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Notability is POV. Dfrg.msc 09:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Notability is NOT POV. As Marcus22 correctly points out, notability can be established by citations. In the absence of citations, the artist may not achieve "notability" status, as seems to me to be the case concerning this artist. Bus stop 16:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually notability is established by reliable external sources. Marcus22 11:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, good. Then all my artists are notable. Reason for deletion is void, keep all and close the debate? Dfrg.msc 07:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually, this may just show that you are maybe a bit too close to the topic to be objective (and yes, I know, can any of us be truly objective, blah, blah, blah). But, "my artists" is a bit of an odd statement. You are the original author of the articles, and I understand that you feel strongly about it, but someone has nominated them for deletion and I think there is a healthy debate going on, which is especially useful for media such as graffiti art, where traditional sources may not be applicable. Freshacconci 16:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The debate is more than healthy. I apologize for writing the shorter "my artists" in the stead of "the articles which feature Melbourne graffiti artists which I have contributed significantly to". I see your point, and the debate may be especially useful for media such as graffiti art, I just wish it wouldn't involve the deletion of "the articles which feature Melbourne graffiti artists which I have contributed significantly to." Cheers, Dfrg.msc 20:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Dfrg. -- The reason for deletion seems valid to me. In the absence of citations it is unlikely the artist has demonstrated sufficient importance for inclusion on Wikipedia. How is that "Point Of View?" Are you saying that Wikipedia shouldn't have any criteria for who is considered notable and who is not considered notable? I think those standards are a necessary fact. If you are citing individuals with little or no recognition, then they likely are not sufficiently notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Bus stop 16:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - The reason for deletion is: notability. Many of these artists are extremely notable. If you follow Street Art. All of these artists are notable if you live in Melbourne. Some of these artists are notable if you live in Australia. Few of these artists are notable if you live in New Zealand. None of these artists are notable if you live in Lisbon. It is very difficult to get web sources on graffiti artists who decline to reveal pictures or even their real names. Dfrg.msc 20:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dfrg. -- It is not the responsibility of the reader of the article to supply sources. It is the responsibility of the editor of the article to supply sources. You say that the artists are notable if one follows Street Art. But the burden is not on the reader of the article to be someone who follows Street Art. That responsibility belongs to the editor who creates the article. In the absence of notability I think articles should be deleted. Do you feel street artists constitute a separate category of artists that deserve special consideration? Do you feel lower standards of notability should be applied to this group of artists? If so, why? Bus stop 09:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The editor(s) have now supplied the sources. I don't feel that lower standards of notability should be applied to this group of artists, only people recognize getting concrete information about them, as would go in a biography, is extremely difficult as most don't want to be found. Dfrg.msc 06:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because in each and every case, as far as I can see, there is nothing to substantiate the statement common to each that "'X' is a notable artist'". No news articles, no critical reviews, no shows, no gallery reviews, etc. Marcus22 12:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Break[edit]

Delete according to the articles they're all "notable". But they are in fact no-notable local personalities. --Tainter 15:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom, and for lack of multiple reliable independent sources to show that they are notable. Edison 17:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: These votes got in before I had time to defend them and it seems that neither properly assessed all of the articles. Dfrg.msc 07:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Speedy Keep All. As author. Have any of you even looked at the articles? No? I assure you it is quite difficult to fabricate and cite information on subjects that are little known. Here are the multiple reliable independent sources that you seem incapable of finding: [1], [2], [3], [4],[5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10],[11], [12]

which substantiate the notability of the artists and shows work done by them as evidence to their notability.

I also believe that several books have been written on the subject. Here's one:

Title: Stencil graffiti capital : Melbourne / Jake Smallman and Carl Nyman. [13]
Author: Smallman, Jake.
New York : Mark Batty Publisher, 2005.
ISBN 0976224534

The articles are covered and recognized by Wikipedia:WikiProject Melbourne, Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia and Wikipedia:WikiProject Graffiti.

If these articles are allowed for deletion, then these articles would also merit deletion. So would Banksy. This cannot happen. It seems that you are allowing your personal interest to determine what and who is notable, to you. If you followed street art, these people are internationally known. The "fact" that they are no-notable local personalities is false. I don't even live in Melbourne, but I do follow street art, which is why they are notable enough to have an article on, in the same way that Dhani Ram Shandil is not notable to me, as I don't follow Indian National Congress.

Please look at he effort I have, and continue to put into, articles like Ha-Ha (street artist) and Rone. Don't delete them, you'll find they are more notable and better quality than a huge amount of articles currently on Wikipedia. I should be improving them instead of defending them.

Read before you judge and please reconsider. Dfrg.msc 22:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no comparison between Banksy and these artists. No-one is saying that a properly referenced article on an artist of repute is going to be deleted. The problem here - with all of the above - is that there are no sources whatsoever other than blogs and, ostensibly, one single reference book. Marcus22 11:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:it is quite difficult to fabricate and cite information on subjects that are little known - are you saying that you are doing original research on non-notable artists then? Ga rr ie 06:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am stating that it would be difficult to fabricate and cite information on subjects that are little known. Dfrg.msc 08:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or Merge into one article. I'm inclined to lean towards keep, simply because a precedent has been set for graffiti art (albeit not my personal favourite medium). However, the only legitimate reference is one published book in which all the above artists appear. That doesn't firmly establish notability as individuals, but as some sort of collective, or grouping, you could make a case. Could this be reworked as one article with a small section on each artist? Just a thought. Freshacconci 22:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep too many to evaluate together, even if they are related. They appear to all come from the same book, but they should be evaluated individually. --Selket ^Talk 00:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge There does seem to be a notable Melbourne graffiti scene. Rone seems to be the leading light, so deserves an article, maybe one or two of the others. An article Melbourne graffiti art should be started and most of the articles merged into it. The references need to be more specific, not just a book, but page numbers and exactly what is referenced on the particular page(s). As for the list of refs provided above, flickr and Youtube are not acceptable references. Besides which, it's not up to the nom to find references: they should already be in the article. Tyrenius 01:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grounds for a Speedy Keep are not 'there are too many to evaluate together'. Where are the sources? A few blogs and one unknown book? If that makes for a Keep - let alone a Speedy Keep - we are setting new and, to my mind, unacceptably low levels for Wikipedia. Marcus22 11:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the sources you are incapable of finding? Right here: [14], [15], [16], [17],[18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23],[24], [25]. Try a Google search. I'm not making this stuff up. Dfrg.msc 21:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist per Selket. I agree with Tyrenius - each article needs to be sourced in accordance with WP:V. You-tube etc don't cut it but The Age does.
Comment - I agree with Freshacconci, a single article seems to be a better idea. If one artist starts to dominate that article then s/he can be split back out.Ga rr ie 06:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, it shouldn't be that way, the Australian cricket team does not list each of the players on the one page. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope doesn't list the cast on the one page. The best graffiti artists in Melbourne should not all be on one page. Dfrg.msc 09:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Break[edit]

Comment – I don't know enough about this artist to say one way or the other about his or her notability. However, if any graffiti artist that gets a modicum of local fame is sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article, then there should be articles on at least half the artists in the documentary Piece by Piece should have an article. In some of the articles I've contributed to on the Mission School and related topics, I've avoided creating new articles on artists like Reminisce and Amaze because I didn't feel like they quite made the cut in terms of notability, at least, not any more than do any of several dozen local up-and-coming gallery artists. Some graffiti/street artists (like Bansky or Shepard Fairey) clearly are notable enough to merit an article, of course, but there really should be clear guidelines as to what constitutes sufficient notability for inclusion for street artists. Peter G Werner 07:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing – if Civilian, Rone, Optic, etc are sufficinetly notable to have articles, than what about San Francisco graffiti legends Reminisce, Amaze, Dug, ORFN, Vegan, Ribbity, etc? (Twist already has an article, but his notability based on fame in the "fine art" world is clearly established.) In other words, what's the cutoff for notability of graffiti artists? Peter G Werner 07:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apparently they're not notable enough.Notability is POV. Peter, I live in Canberra, I like street art, so I have heard of these artists, so I developed articles on each of them. I've never heard of Reminisce, Amaze, Dug, ORFN, Vegan or Ribbity; but I would very much like to. You have, because you live in America, you like street art, and you can develop articles on them. Through Wikipedia, I can learn about your Street Artists, and you can learn about mine. If the consensus is not that most graffiti artists deserve not to have articles, I'll help you as much as I can to make them. Dfrg.msc 09:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I have poured many, many hours into these articles and easily over 250 edits. I will continue to improve them up to the moment they are deleted. I wish to prove my work ethic and co-operation, so I will make any and all changes you wish to keep them. Dfrg.msc 09:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Has Wikipedia really changed so much? Here, for example, is the full text of the article for "Meek (street artist)":- Meek is a notable street artist operating out of Melbourne, Australia. Meek is twenty six years old, and started putting up street art at the start of 2003. Meek enjoys the irony of his name, in an area that is all about bragging and boasting. Meek lived in London for some time and was exposed to the work of Banksy. As well as stenciling prolifically Meek has also hijacked billboards, used wheat paste and stickers. And here is the full text for the article for "Phibs (street artist)":- Phibs is a notable street art operating out of Melbourne Australia. Some of the others say just as little. And those which say more are saying just as little! Are these really Keeps? Are they even a Relist?? Is it too much work for an editor on AfD to look at these articles and decide that they are all saying nothing? As to the single reference book - which we have no access to - is that really all that suffices these days in order to warrant an article? Times certainly have-a-changed on here.... Marcus22 10:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: YOUR EDITS MEAN NOTHING TO ME. Please look in the history's of the articles. You will find that I am the only editor adding content to all of them. At the moment Rone is my project, then Ha-Ha in time I hope to bring the rest up to standard or better. It is unfair of you to expect me to generate full articles or have them deleted. Dfrg.msc 21:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some. Delete some. The original author has asserted twice in this AfD that notability is POV. While in life, I tend to agree, there are some guidelines in place to prevent editor POV from prevailing. See WP:NOTE#Notability is not subjective. Of course, there's the basic def of notability: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other." So notability is POV, but the POV of people writing for sources outside of Wikipedia.

In the end, I think these need to be treated individually and not deleted or kept wholesale. The ones that are more developed and demonstrate references from multiple verifiable sources (Rone, for example) are worth stronger consideration than the ones that only reference this one book. The originally-nominated article is probably a delete, unless additional references can be directly incorporated into the article. I think an article on this scene as a whole might be worthwhile, but not necessarily at the expense of some of the more notable individuals with the scene. Planetneutral 14:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge Per Tyrenius & Freshacconci above. One article on Melbourne street art would I think be clearly justified for notability. Individually, even Rone is a bit marginal. Whatever Star Trek & the Australian cricket team do, treating minor artists as "schools" is a traditional way of handling them, of which there are many examples in WP (and there could usefully be more). See School of Fontainebleau etc. Johnbod 15:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Again, POV effects this debate too much, to you Johnbod, they're "minor artists". Not to me. Dfrg.msc 21:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dfrg. -- You take exception to Johnbod characterizing them as "minor artists." And you say that they are not "minor artists" to you. Can you tell me what they are to you? Can you shed some light on the significance you see in what they do? Surely you don't see them as "major artists," or do you? How would you characterize them? Bus stop 14:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't lets go there; I presume he sees both terms as POV, which is a point of view I can understand, though I don't share it. Johnbod 15:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod -- Why are you "presuming?" Wouldn't it be preferable to allow Dfrg. to speak for himself? Bus stop 15:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've done enough talking for the both of us. Dfrg.msc 06:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC does have allowance for "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." That doesn't mean all the exponents merit an individual article. I advise also not creating miniscule stubs but working articles up properly one at a time. Notability isn't just POV. We're looking to see if people have achieved it through wider recognition evidenced in media coverage, exhibitions, prizes, museum collections, books etc. Tyrenius 22:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All and nominate to Delete some individually at a later time There is no sensible way to deal with a multiple listing of pages like this. Clearly, the Rone and Ha-Ha pages, for example, are currently much better than some of the other pages and should not be considered for deletion. The fact that some of these artists have formed an artist's collective, Everfresh Studios, in Melbourne is notable and encyclopedic. Also, some of these artists could be contacted for photos, surely, and visuals would make these articles better. An example of art found at Everfresh Studios can be found here: Meggs photos. My feeling is that the primary editor needs time to develop these. --Greatwalk 02:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThere are also stencil art festivals held in both Sydney and Melbourne and a documentary on Melbourne street art: Rash all of which feature one or more of these artists. Clearly, several of these articles can be better sourced. --Greatwalk 03:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Break[edit]

Delete ~~Vexta, Meek (street artist)~~, Optic (street artist), ~~Phibs (street artist), Sixten (street artist) and Sync (street artist)~~, as those articles dont yet have much content or assertions of notability. It is clear that the contributor User:Dfrg.msc has taken on a bit more than she/he can defend at the moment, but the articles Rone and Ha-Ha (street artist) indicate that the artists involved are notable in their field, in the Melbourne area. We should have a bit of faith, and add maintenance tags to remaining articles, and renominated one at a time if they are not improved. John Vandenberg 03:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI agree, Phibs is currently a bad article, but the subject is one of the Everfresh Studio artists. I hope this article is not deleted and protected to prevent re-creation.

I like the sound of these comments. There's something worthwhile here. It just needs the right form for it. There's no reason why a deleted article would be "salted". That usually only happens in cases of abusive recreation, e.g. with same content after AfD, as opposed to new super-improved content, which can make recreation acceptable if it successfully addresses AfD objections. Tyrenius 05:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand why the articles would be deleted only to have them re-instated later. The article would be deleted just for the sake of being deleted, then re-instated. Wikipedia in not paper. What is wrong with having the articles out so people can edit and improve them? We have already established the notability of most them. Dfrg.msc 07:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the notability hasnt been established across the board. My recommendation was to give you more time to establish it. The reason why some should be deleted is that you can only work on a few articles at a time, and some of these articles arnt worth keeping in there current form. For example, Vexta only says "Vexta is a notable street art operating out of Melbourne Australia". Thats it; the rest of the text in the article is merely dressing. Hardly worth keeping. Compare it to another article that is being considered for deletion: Magdalena Trzebiatowska. The Vexta article is no where near as good at present. John Vandenberg 07:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. Keep ~~Civilian (street artist) Dlux (street artist), Ha-Ha (street artist), Psalm (street artist) and Rone~~ all except Optic (street artist). I've started tidying these ones up. This is the first time I have come across an article about a real person whose name is not disclosed. Does anyone have thoughts about the complications around using the real names of these esteemed artists? John Vandenberg 07:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurrah, now to persuade you on Optic.... The complications around using the real names of the artists may be huge. f Ha Ha ever revealed his real identity, he would be arrested soon after on extremely seriously charges. Unless he has a serous mental disability, there's no way he would do it. Dfrg.msc 07:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Granted these pages should contain more citations, maybe we as a community should work on it rather than destroying it! These pages still contain much more than hundred of stub articles and they are just as notable and I dont see us deleting them, so If it has a good amount of information and is up to a quality standard which these articles are (nice work Dfrg) why get rid of these articles? If we delete this then hundreds upon hundreds of articles will constitute deletion! Who are you or anyone here to say what is more important. If wikipedia ran on that ideology of notability it simply wouldn't work. Culv e rin ? ^Talk 08:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. How are you defining notability then? It seems so elemental, but to reiterate: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other."

That's the ideology. It's laid out pretty clearly. No one who edits here gets to decide notability any more than you do. The decision is based on whether reliable outside sources think the subject is worthy of attention and demonstrate it through publication (and whether there is a consensus that this is the case). From the available evidence, I'd say that some of these entries qualify and some don't.

Also, some of the entries don't have a "good amount of information," as you've claimed. Vexta is a one-sentence article! Some of them, however, do have the right stuff. Sure, it's possible that there will be stronger evidence of notability for the other artists in the future, but there might be more evidence of my notability later too. Doesn't mean I warrant an entry now. I'm pretty sure there are hundreds of articles that would disappear after a deletion proposal, but it's a matter of insufficient time and attention.

And I don't mean to sound uncivil here, but the evidence suggests that a) you didn't really look at all of these pages before commenting on them wholesale and b) you are here in support of an editor with whom you have a relatively close relationship. I don't have any problem with the latter (in fact, it's appreciable), if the comments are objective. Anyway, enough out of me... Planetneutral 13:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Culverin, it great to hear you are keen for these articles to be kept. A lot of the comments on this discussion indicate that you are not alone. This deletion process will last about five days from when it was started, and you are more than welcome to help improve the articles during this time. For my own part, I would prefer that we concentrate on the best five of them. Five good articles is better than eleven stubs. If you look at the history of the five I have recommended to be kept, you will see that I have edited them all; User:Rfwoolf also has, and a new user User:Urbanistika also has started helping on Rone. If you know anything at all about these artists, share what you know by adding a comment on the talk page of the article. Each article needs to have at least two pieces of supporting evidence from [[WP:RS|"reliable sources"]. Due to the nature of this art work, I think it would be really helpful to have more photographs of the artwork. John Vandenberg 14:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, I've added quite a few reference links with numerous photos of works exhibited in galleries or at shows, and a link to an award winning documentary in which several of these artists were featured...I'm not sure I agree that only the five best should be kept. 'Phibs,' for example, is now referenced well enough to develop the article further. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 03:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General Comment: If the same effort being expendend to reach a consescus on wether they should be deleted or not, when into improving the articles, then we wouldn't be here at all. Dfrg.msc 01:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I 'd like to thank all those who are putting effort into improving the articles. Really, thanks. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 07:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All, but nominate to Delete some individually at a later time, per Greatwalk. I think the notability of each artist needs to be assessed on its own merits – I do not support either blanket inclusion or blanket deletion. I also don't agree that "notability is POV". Wikipedia has clear standards about notability, namely multiple non-trivial mentions in published sources. Some graffiti artists rise to that level of notability, but many don't.

I do like the idea of an article like Street art in Melbourne, or some variation on that (using "street art" in the title would make it more inclusive than "graffiti"). Such an article could probably be quite easily assembled from multiple non-trivial sources, even if individual artists may not rise to that level of notability. If that kind of article is a good idea, in the future, I'd certainly like to contribute a Street art in San Francisco article (for which I can find many published sources for). Peter G Werner 07:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than entitled to your opinion. I agree with ~~some~~ most of this, I like the idea of a Street art in Melbourne article, but not at the expense of deleting all the artits page. It could list really trivial small artists. Dfrg.msc 07:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know much about the notability of these artists, and none of the articles (except for the one on Rone) tell me very much about what makes that artist notable. Its probably the case that not every single artist listed above is notable in the sense of having been published in multiple non-trivial sources. The ones that aren't shouldn't have their own article, even though they should merit mention in a Street art of Mebourne article. Rone sounds notable, but there's very little in the other articles which speaks to the notability of those artists. Prime example, "Optic is a notable street artist operating out of Melbourne Australia." Well, why is he "notable"? Just because he has a page in the Stencil Graffiti book? Does that mean every single artist in Graffiti World and Graffiti Women gets a Wikipedia page? That's an awfully low standard of notability. Peter G Werner 21:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The artist(s) are notable because their art is everywhere in Melbourne, all are prolific artists who's individual style can be easily recognized. In response to your questions:

Because of the prolific nature of his/her art, the skill of his/her work and his/her uniques style.
No.
No. Of course not.

I will add this to each article if you like. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 05:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would call it "Stencil art in Melbourne," or "Stencil art movement in Melbourne." But that second name really should have a citation referring to it as a "movement." I don't know if that already exists. I would not call it "Street art" or "Graffiti art." Neither "street" or "graffiti" is as specifically related to visual art as is stencil printing. I don't think any of the artists are notable enough to have articles devoted to them. None of them have received sufficient critical note. If one or more of them goes on to receive multiple non-trivial published citations then by all means I think separate articles should be devoted to them. Another possible name would be "Stencil art movement in Australia," since there seems also to be a Sydney stencil art movement. Bus stop 00:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion. Dfrg.msc 06:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Break[edit]

Comment This article says that Ha Ha is artist Regan Tamanui and this Age article says the Citylights Gallery owner has been commissioned to collect stencil art for the National Gallery. Some of these artists are exhibited in galleries and have had works exhibited under their street names at the Stencil Art exhibitions, so several articles can be improved and are notable. --Greatwalk 23:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, Greatwalk. Dfrg.msc 05:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then Ha-Ha (street artist) definitely needs to be merged into Regan Tamanui if they're known to be the same person. The precident on that is clear – graffiti artist Twist is gallery artist Barry McGee, and one article covers both his gallery and graffiti work. Peter G Werner 02:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, hold on. That hasn't been verified or confirmed. I doubt the Ha-Ha (or any of them) would divulge their real identities because of the nature of their art. Dfrg.msc 05:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha Ha (I don't think it's hyphenated, btw) has appeared on TV and several public exhibitions. It's not really that hard to find quite a lot of info on most of these artists on Google. I added a few more references. Honestly, I think the time would be better spent on improving these articles. :-) Dfrg.msc is quite right, one link doesn't confirm Ha Ha's identity, but the styles are similar --Greatwalk 07:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Googling "Ha-ha" and "Regan Tamanui" reveals several sources that state the two are the same, including Ha-ha's MySpace page. I think a merge is in order. Peter G Werner 06:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be hesitant to think so. If Ha Ha ever revealed his real identity, he would be arrested soon after on extremely seriously charges. Unless he has a serous mental disability, there's no way he would do it. A merge should be discussed later on the appropriate talk page. Dfrg.msc 06:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I think that these articles are useful and valid! Drizzt J a m o 03:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Very little can be said about any artist. Notability is all that matters. Or, if you want to see what matters, look at the piece. Or, look at reproductions of the pieces. You can't write an article if a prior article or articles do not exist. That is: multiple, non trivial published material from reliable sources. That is why Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a picture book. Bus stop 06:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graphics would make better articles, but I agree in part. An artist is 'made' by review: public exhibitions, becoming the subject of documentaries, interviews, being members of known artists' collectives, becoming curators, judges and reviewers, etc. A surprising number of the artists the primary editor has selected have, and are, these. A quick search on Google shows as much in several cases. --Greatwalk 07:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greatwalk -- I didn't say an artist is made by review. But Wikipedia has standards. If an artist falls short of those standards do you feel we should waive those standards? And if so, what is the basis for the lowering of standards for so-called street artists? Can you explain to me why you might feel this category of artist deserves special consideration? Bus stop 09:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, poor wording on my part, so trying again: I said an artist is 'made' by review, and didn't mean to imply you had, Bus stop. My point was: Most of these artist have been exhibited, have been the subject of a documentary or have taken part in public exhibitions, have been interviewed by reliable sources...some are curators themselves, some have organised exhibitions and artists' collectives. As it turns out, Melbourne is recognised for its street art, and the National Gallery is currently collecting pieces. I found all of this out in the last 24 hours, in bits and pieces when I had the time, as the result of this AfD debate...so I think we're not really asking Wiki to drop its standards to allow these articles. Most would be easy to improve, are notable, encyclopedic would make good additions if fixed. --Greatwalk 10:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. The continued stating that these artists are not notable and especially that "very little can be said about any artist" is a complete falsehood, ten minutes of research would reveal this to you. Dfrg.msc 06:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Break[edit]

Keep: I have updated Sixten (street artist) with the same info as can be found on Swedish Wiki. --Daniel de Leon 14:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel de Leon -- Sixten (street artist) is not notable. The sources given are trivial. Web sites are put together by the artists themselves, making them vanity publications. If, as the article says, "Sixten is one of the forces behind Stencil Revolution," then mention in that publication is self promotion. I don't think it matters if "Sixten is credited as inspiration for the part of "Klottraren" (Swedish for vandal), in the Swedish opera Kurfursten," because no mention is made of Sixten (street artist) at that web site. Bus stop 15:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop, you refer to the External Links section only. The references given are numerous and non-trivial. --Greatwalk 00:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greatwalk -- All that I see established is that there is a notable stencil art movement in Melbourne. (As I think has already been pointed out by Tyrenius.) But I can't clearly see that any of the artists in that movement stand out at this time. I think the first article that should be created is the Melbourne stencil art movement article. Then, if warranted, separate articles could be created for artists that can't be contained in that article without skewing the focus of that article. I think this approach (trying to establish notability for a handful of artists) is putting the cart before the horse. The activity surrounding stencil art in Melbourne is really interesting, to me. But it is misplaced focus to try to create individual articles on artists in that movement at this time. Bus stop 15:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop, you appear (to me) to be stating some different policy for 'notability' than I believe Wiki gives. Several of these artists are featured as artists in numerous, non-trivial sources: (the documentary and the feature in a book about street art in Melbourne is sufficient to show notability by Wiki standards, but several artists also are referenced as exhibited artists in their own right at festivals and galleries). I think a page on graffiti in Melbourne would make a great article too, but whether one exists or not can not be used as grounds for deletion of these articles, surely: they were made in good faith, and either meet or can clearly be improved to meet Wiki standards. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 03:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are not talking about very old artists, with long established histories. Are any of these artists over 30? Not that age is a criterion. But an article devoted solely to one artist implies significant notability. I just find it ridiculous to create articles willy nilly, when logic shows that the many artists listed here are participants in an interesting movement that should receive it's own article. And it is only within that article that these artists receive their proper context. Bus stop 17:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, significant notability sounds like a possible new policy that might be developed for artists? I ask because it seems to me that these article could also be used to support a new article about the movement itself... --Greatwalk 03:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greatwalk -- We are not disputing whether or not these articles were created in good faith. And if they can be improved to meet Wikipedia standards, then why haven't they been improved to meet Wikipedia standards? I retract the phrase "significant notability." Obviously I am not holding these artists to higher Wikipedia standards than other artists. It is normal Wikipedia minimal standards of notability that are not attained. The closest any of the artists come to notability is being mentioned in passing while describing the stencil art scene in general in Melbourne. That constitutes "trivial" coverage, in my opinion. To none of these artists is actually devoted anything approaching individual coverage. I don't think the mention of the names and a few tidbits about them in an article covering stencil art in Melbourne qualifies each one for a separate free standing article. I do not see in the references even one of these artists actually receiving non trivial coverage. I've suggested the Melbourne stencil art article only because that seems an appropriate setting at this time for what little needs to be said about these individual artists. That is not to degrade them. But the published material out there simply barely does more than mention them, and only as part of a group. My suggestion of the Melbourne stencil art article is not meant as a reason why they should not have individual articles. It is simply the appropriate context at this time. Bus stop 05:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop, your statements: The closest any of the artists come to notability is being mentioned in passing while describing the stencil art scene in general in Melbourne and To none of these artists is actually devoted anything approaching individual coverage are simply not accurate. The artists are featured individually in separate sections of the book/documentary: please look at the reference websites. Smallman/Nyman provide a photo of the pages dedicated to 'Psalm' for instance: book is a collection of individual artist profiles, including the eleven artists the primary editor chose to make articles about and the documentary site clearly lists names of the 'featured artists.' Some of the articles are better referenced again.: I don't know why all haven't been improved yet: perhaps they will be after the AfD closes. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 06:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop -- On the site (http://www.kurfursten.se), which is in Swedish you can download the programme for the show, which contains a photo of "Klottraren" putting up the 610 tag. Daniel de Leon 16:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel de Leon -- OK. Thank you. I have downloaded that PDF for the program, and indeed I see an individual spray painting what looks like "610." So what? By means of this I am to accept that a name not even associated with the number "610" except by the assertion of that in the article, is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia? I don't see that as notability. "Six ten" may be a very clever alternative to "610," but does that add to notability? Bus stop 16:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop -- Haha, I won't fight you on this, I just put up the same info as what there is on the Swedish version of wiki. If it really matters, a simple way to get a definite answer would be to contact the people who put up the opera. It's just an email away. Daniel de Leon 16:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel de Leon -- An e-mail from the people who put up the opera confirming that "Sixten is credited as inspiration for the part of "Klottraren"" would not indicate notability. Not in my opinion, at least. Do you feel that notability would be established by that alone? Bus stop 16:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete graffiticruft, unless sufficient references are added to make me reconsider my vote. "Civilian feels that“street art is an important and necessary part of society”". And Piotus feels that this article in unimportant and not notable part of Wikipedia.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 03:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As this page is listed on Deletion sorting/Visual arts, can I please make a request that we avoid the easy habit of the ghastly computer terminology of "cruft" and come up with more inventive alternatives! Tyrenius 05:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the etymology of cruft is older than modern computers :-) John Vandenberg 06:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Thanks for that John. Dfrg.msc 06:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Added references to Civilian (street artist) and believe this article can be further improved. There are numerous articles under consideration in this AfD...not all are in the same shape as the 'Civilian' page was/still is. Some being considered for deletion are much better. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 05:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see how the current references are insufficent. What more do you want? There are less references on safer articles! Dfrg.msc 06:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note Due to the fact that so much has changed on these articles, and more than two sources exist on each of the articles except Optic (street artist), I believe they should all be kept and individually renominated in a month or so if someone thinks that the articles arnt up to scratch at that time. John Vandenberg 07:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with this. Bur comparatively, they are all up to scratch now. Except Optic (street artist). Dfrg.msc 07:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.