Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art in Ruins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Keep. I'm closing this early, as the article is radically changed, the nom is withdrawn as a result, and the only deletes are based on the initial version with conditions that have been met. No point in taking up more time over it. Tyrenius (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Art in Ruins

Art in Ruins (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

An art group. The problem with the article is that it is completely made up of quotations from magazines and news articles and as such fails at asserting notability. Has been speedied before, but was rejected this time around. Was rejected as a speedy. Prod was removed by author after simply sticking some weblinks and not putting any new prose in at all. JuJube (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete unless notability can be asserted. -- Roleplayer (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - no evidence of original writing. Soxred93 | talk bot 17:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete If some better sources can be found, the article cleaned up and wikified, it would be a nice article. Do away with the quotes. -=Elfin=-341 06:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It's astonishing that having references from verifiable external sources is now considered grounds for deletion (!). This article is a useful reference for anyone investigating the artworld in the UK and should remain. If this needs wikifying I can do it, but it will be difficult to wikify it if it gets deleted... --Rob Myers (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

1. The quotes of which the article is composed were some of those used by the artists in their exhibition 'Double Take" at the Windows Gallery Prague in 2000. Each quote appeared as lasertext on the window in front of a piece of the artist's work, thus instantly mediating the exhibition with the disembodied voices of critics. The artists play with the voice of the artist and that of the critic. The article does the same thing. In effect the article attempts to capture the way they play with the legitimising authority of 'normal' articles. 2. The image comes from the artists. It has been used as a postcard and is this in the public domain. It is too low res. to reproduce. HannahThistle (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

    • So you're basically acknowledging that the whole article is ripped off from other people but that that's the point? Wikipedia does not take artistic stands, thank you. JuJube (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. See note below I appreciate the sincerity of the submitter, but she has not taken in the comments about Wikipedia policies and the issue of copyright violation. I'd change my vote if a policy-compliant article could be written by the end of the AfD. Also I'd be willing to suggest userfying for further improvement if the submitter agreed to take on the task of writing a normal article. I considered doing so myself but the Google results are too confusing (the top hit for 'Art in Ruins' is a group in Providence, Rhode Island). There are 14 external links at the bottom of the article but they are written in a hip, insider style that makes statements of plain fact hard to deduce. Hannah's statement about the rights for the image are incorrect; distribution as a postcard does not put the image in the public domain. EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Texts have been published in numerous publications and exhibitions made internationally (see the CV published at http://www.lcca.lv/projekti/utopija/art_in_ruins/ ). Art in Ruins never copyrighted the name and it was used by the group in New York who set up around 2000 to highlight buildings of architectural note threatened with demolition. Most of the links at the end were added for verifying 'notability' and give details of notable exhibitions and publications in which Art in Ruins participated, particularly in UK, Ukraine and Austria. Regarding the postcard what would be the best way to make it usable in the article? HannahThistle (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am concerned that Hannah may be planning to write a jokey, indirect article that says as little as possible about the group in plain terms. A jokey article is unlikely to survive on Wikipedia. If we leave the field others will come across it and insist on rewriting it in a clear, common-sense way. So I'm asking Hannah if she's willing to have a normal, prosaic article on this. EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article I have submitted is serious as is the work of Art in Ruins. I would say there is no such thing as common sense and I don't consider it appropriate to be prosaic. I have however added two introductory paragraphs written in authorial voice, if that helps, to contextualise the article. HannahThistle (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment might possibly be notable but needs complete rewriting. Johnbod (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The subject matter is notable. The article needs to be wikified. It needs information on founders and location in introductory paragraphs (vs. buried in someone's quote), and intro paragraphs need in-line citation. It needs to explain how, in a google search world, it's been effected by not copyrighting its name. It needs to summarize or incorporate quotes within the context of an encyclopedic article, not leave a string of stand-alones. Collaborative editing by SME, such as at WikiProject Visual Arts, would remove the "article ownership" tone. Coffee4me (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Did a complete rewrite. I submitted this AfD to the list over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts hoping to attract some experts, and I am glad to see more participants in the AfD. I'll change my vote to Keep if a reasonably-rewritten version (like the one I just checked in) is still standing at the end of the process. Somebody still needs to fix the copyright on the picture or the image police will come by and delete it. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • My rewrite edit-conflicted with yours! I've merged the results. All the deletes need to look again, but I would say their objections have now been met and it looks like a reasonable stub. Tyrenius (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • A great improvement, in my opinion. I'm changing my vote to Keep based on Tyrenius' version. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep after rewrite(s). I note " For a while there was a real buzz around Art In Ruins, they signed to the Gimpel Fils Gallery in the West End and it looked like their brand of critical post modernism was about to storm the institution of art and give it a real shake up. Unfortunately most historical traces of their influence are currently obliterated by the less interesting work produced by what became known as Young British Art ...." from this. Just an (friend0 and artist's blog, but I think they are notable. Johnbod (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks way better now. I withdraw my nom cheerfully. ^_^ JuJube (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • For future reference speedy criterion G11 would work with the article as first written: "Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." Tyrenius (talk) 03:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The reason we are having this AfD is because I declined the A7 speedy nomination. Tyrenius, are you saying that I should have let the speedy go through? EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2008 (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.