Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D*Dog
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 Delete. utcursch | talk 08:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] D*Dog
- D*Dog (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
- See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D*Face Tyrenius 22:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Non-notable minor image from artist already in AfD. Even if the artist's article survives the AfD, I can think of any way this image is notable. Only non-blog reference is tangential in an interview for a barely reliable source. — Coren (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, no sources, not notable. --Dhartung | Talk 00:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete, Source is reliable. The first sentence of the WP:RS says "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Reading further, we find that "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight." Blogs are such a source, yes, but if we proceed, we can read that "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:
- it is relevant to their notability;
- it is not contentious;
- it is not unduly self-serving;
- it does not involve claims about third parties;
- it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
- there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
- the article is not based primarily on such sources."
- Granted, the article is "based on such sources" but we cannot judge it solely on that, because of the nature of the subject. D*Dog is a creation of a guerrilla artist. As such, his mode of expression and mediums he chooses to express in are subversive. Thus, mainstream sources will overlook his work to the extent possible. Because of this, the only sources that will talk about his work will be subversive as well (blogs, personal webpages, forums). In the context of a subversive art form, the only reliable sources will be those subversive as well. This phenomenon is very similar to the Do-It-Yourself punk ethic, which you can read about in the Punk article. These individuals, tired of having to conform to the established course for artists, choose to subvert and express themselves in "illegitimate" ways. This information should be on wikipedia, because it is a part of our history, even if the traditional historians disagree with it.In the interest of the common knowledge, this article should be allowed to live. --CespiT 15:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- — CespiT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment if they choose to express themselves in ways that do not garner mention in "legitimate" media, then they choose to keep themselves out of Wikipedia. Such is their right, and we should respect them and not burden them with such bourgeoisie claptrap. So... 'Strong Delete. MarkinBoston 22:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep might be notable, but needs at least 3 WP:RS, which might include blogs. Bearian 17:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment MarkinBoston, I believe you have misinterpreted my argument. I said that the artist's "mode of expression and mediums he chooses to express in are subversive". This in does not mean that they choose to be kept out. On the contrary, it is the authors, creators, and moderators of "legitimate" media that prefer to exclude them. These artists simply choose a medium to express themselves that is more accessible and open to their entrance. Also, how can this be "bourgeoisie claptrap"? There is no intention of making money with entering this article into the Free Encyclopedia, far from it, the intention is simply allowing others to understand the phenomena that surround them easily and completely free. --CespiT 17:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- But Wikipedia is not the place to make such a point. — Coren (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment MarkinBoston, I believe you have misinterpreted my argument. I said that the artist's "mode of expression and mediums he chooses to express in are subversive". This in does not mean that they choose to be kept out. On the contrary, it is the authors, creators, and moderators of "legitimate" media that prefer to exclude them. These artists simply choose a medium to express themselves that is more accessible and open to their entrance. Also, how can this be "bourgeoisie claptrap"? There is no intention of making money with entering this article into the Free Encyclopedia, far from it, the intention is simply allowing others to understand the phenomena that surround them easily and completely free. --CespiT 17:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, - merge if the creator survives his AFD (doesn't look like it) -- Steve Hart 23:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete or at best, merge to the artists' page if it survives its AFD. -- Whpq 16:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Tyrenius 17:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- D*lete. Sorry, the artist may be notable, but this piece? No. --UsaSatsui 18:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per norm. Rehevkor 18:28, 30 August 2007 (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.
