Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of graffiti artists

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 no consensus very close, hard to say there's a consensus to delete. As for verifiability, as long as the articles on these people claim they're graffiti artists and that's not challenged, I don't think the list is at fault for being unverifiable. W.marsh 21:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of graffiti artists

Listcruft that can't pass WP:V -Nv8200p talk 04:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete I don't think this is listcruft. There's definitely such a thing as a notable graffiti artist and this article does the things that lists do better than categories. Having said that, there are such enormous problems of verifiability and notability in this area that this list is an unmaintainable vanity magnet. Why on earth is this listed along side this? If the blue links lead to NN individuals, how an we verify that the red links are deserving of inclusion on the list, let along articles of their own? Some graffiti artist AfDs are definately in order. -- IslaySolomon 05:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Dennisthe2 05:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with much of what IslaySolomon says. However, many of these artists have their own articles, and are therefore presumably verifiable and notable. If 'the blue links lead to NN individuals', then that's a separate issue for those articles to be AFD'd. The big problem for this list is definitely the verifiability/notability. I'd be happy to see the list trimmed back to only blue-links, which would get rid of all the non-notable cruft.--duncan 07:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I agree with the nominator. This is indeed listcruft, and the fact that most (if not all) of the artists only use pseudonyms makes this impossible to verify. JIP | Talk 08:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There's been grafitti art appearing in books and on book covers (as per a recent AFD) meaning the artist who made them is arguably notable. Having a pseudonym doesn't neccesarily exclude one from being verifiable as Lemony Snicket should show. All in all, the concerns mentioned can be addressed by something as the Wikipedia:Cleanup Task Force instead of deletion.
• Comment: And a reminder, cruft isn't a reason for deletion as what is and isn't cruft is highly subjective. A single word 'non-notable' should similarly not be used as a reason without facts to back it up as per Stifles excellent essay User:Stifle/Don't say non-notable. Base your nomination on objective facts. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:V. Whispering^(talk/c) 18:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Changed to No Vote. Changed to Delete. I've removed the red names (but they keep coming back). Likewise I fear a good number of the remaining blue names refer to artists who have articles on Wikipedia but who are, nevertheless, unverifiable. We need to cover graffiti art; but it has to meet the same standards as other art movements/artists. This looks a vehicle for abuse. (By way of example; the first 'blue' name that I've looked up - Blade - appears to be more or less completely unverifiable and quite probably insufficiently notable to be here. (Check edit history of article Blade, for example)). Looks like there are quite a few more names to be deleted should someone have the time to look into this. Marcus22 22:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC) re-edited own comments Marcus22 14:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JIP. —Khoikhoi 05:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Marcus22, good work on tidying up the names. If some articles aren't sourced etc, then they need their own AFD or improvement. Some of the graffiti artist articles are indeed verified, notable etc, and should remain. So in that case a list of those articles would be useful, which this is. Please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater here by deleting a list of names just because some names might not merit being on the list.--duncan 17:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean, Duncan. And I'm all for graffiti art being covered properly on Wikipedia. But I'm not sure that this article serves much purpose and it is a vehicle for abuse. It would be better if such a list were trimmed down to the main artists and included as a section in a full article on graffiti art. (So that would be a tidy up and merge from me iff such an article already exists). Marcus22 09:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete This is a completely uninformative list of pseudonyms. Wikipedia doesn't need lists of anonymous people whose claim to fame is vandalism. Devanatha 00:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Surely a list of graffiti artists can cut it alongside such lists as 'iranian philosophers', 'herbs and spices' and 'hobbies'. I fear that graffiti related pages are being unfairly culled due to the fact that for example someone from Canada can't Google a graffiti artist from Spain and therefore finds the artist to be not notable. Meanwhile the artist remains clearly visible (and therefore notable) to the thousands of people who bother to look up each day. Due to the illegal nature of their actions, prominent graffiti artists tend not to publish their identities without their consent and steer clear of such items as personal webpages or a 'myspace', as a result their identities often do not extend beyond their chosen psuedonyms, unless discovered or published by police.

To solve this problem I suggest there be a seperate list of guidelines as to what makes a graffit artist notable, as the conventional wikipedia guidelines do not seem apply well to graffiti artists. Time and time again have I seen what I would think to be a notable graffiti artist removed from wikipedia by groups of people who don't seem prepared or are unable to gather their information from a source other than the internet, a domain in which graffiti artists and their indentities can rarely be found or verified. I also feel that due to the fact the graffiti is illegal in most places, people have an inherent negative attitude toward graffiti art, which they then associate with the article. PeterPartyOn 02:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment I disagree. If we allow separate criteria for what makes a graffiti artist notable, then we must allow separate criteria for what makes an environmental artist notable, for what makes a renaissance artist notable etc. etc. And then we end up in a mess. Marcus22 10:07, 4 October 2006 (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.