- 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 delete. Consensus for deletion is clear. I suggest the question of whether PAPP is a reliable, cite-able secondary source be raised at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Public Art in Public Places[edit]
- 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)Reply[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Barte (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ORG, only passing mentions in articles about other topics. No significant coverage. - Ahunt (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete nothing appears to have changed since I originally raised concerns about its notability. signed, Rosguill talk 16:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete per above. ((u|Sdkb)) talk 17:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- 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)Reply[reply]
- Comment - I think once this discussion is complete that issue needs to be addressed. - Ahunt (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- 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)Reply[reply]
- They claimed to have no affiliation. Some cleanup is probably warranted indeed. ((u|Sdkb)) talk 18:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete - After searching online, I could not find anything except social media such 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)Reply[reply]
- 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)Reply[reply]
- Comment - FYI: user:Natasha Behrendt is now User:Shabehr. User:K. M. Williamson is now User:M Na zdravi Barte (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment - With the article's lack of notability all but settled, I'd like to address whether PAPP is a reliable, cite-able secondary source as well as the question of WP:LINKSPAM. The problem with establishing the former is the lack of transparency and vetting. Looking at PAPP's official site, I don't see what I'd expect to see to confidently link to it. The claim is that PAPP "collaborates with with local governments, news media, technology firms, and arts and cultural organizations to provide free and accessible public art information as a public benefit." But other than Google, none of these are named. There's no history of the project. No endorsements from institutions or experts. As established above, there's no press coverage. The Director, a "social ecologist", has a one-sentence bio and no other online presence I can find. Do you see the problem?
- The linkspam question exasperates this, because when an organization that hasn't established notability or reliability is inserted into 80 Wikipedia entries, eyebrows are raised. And that's not good for either Wikipedia or PAPP. My advice is to disentangle the two for the benefit of both. Take out all the references. Stop arguing the organization is notable because of all those links (See the thread on my talk page.) And trust the process. Barte (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I have the same concerns, but you have explained them very succinctly. - Ahunt (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Barte, I'm coming to this from the perspective of someone who used PAPP for one reference for a fact at Dividing the Light that I couldn't find anywhere else (the diameter of the piece's aperture). I agree that the indications currently are that the organization would not hold up as a RS for an FA review, but with regard to supporting what would otherwise be an unreferenced non-controversial claim in a start-class page, it's better than nothing, so I'd want to see it at most tagged with ((Better source needed)), not removed. ((u|Sdkb)) talk 20:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-oct-21-ca-turrell21-story.html Barte (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I think the real concern here is that the organization has been gratuitously mentioned on Wikipedia for promotional purposes. - Ahunt (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I agree that the WP:LINKSPAMing is extremely disturbing. And no, I do not think their database should be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Netherzone (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[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.