Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GH avisualagency™

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 of the debate was DELETE (and a curse on all the socks!). -Doc ask? 09:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


New users please read: You are welcome to comment but please add your comments to the bottom of the page (not the top) and sign them by adding four tildes (~) which will automatically add your username or IP address and the time and date. Please do not alter the comments or votes of others; this is considered vandalism and grounds for blocking. Please do not comment or vote multiple times pretending you are different people; such comments and votes will be deleted or ignored. Read this for more information. Thank you.

Anonymous readers are strongly urged to read the relevant inclusion/exclusion guidelines for corporations at WP:CORP.

GH avisualagency™

<<This vote has been protected until the vote formally closed>>

Advert for non-notable company. Google test yields < 1K results for "GH avisualagency." Appears to fail WP:CORP. Klaw ¡digame! 20:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep This is not an advert for a non-notable company. Numerous books, articles, exhibitions and other materials have been published about and by this collective of artists and designers. Google search results should not be the only way to determine the validity of the GH avisualagency inclusion on wikipedia. lerner
  • Article's creator, and a founding partner of the company. User's previous edits were all to this article, plus one to an album for which he did artwork. | Klaw ¡digame! 05:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP This company is a pivotal creative collective that has influenced artists all over the world. Their monograph is held in the highest esteem by and is in the literary collections of such prestigious institutions as the Tate Gallery in London as well as the Museum of Modern Art in NYC. In fact, it was selected as staff pick by MOMA. It is also in the library of the Atlanta College of Art. not once in the WP:CORP does it ever state that "< 1K results" on google is a criteria.
You can see very clearly that it specifically states:
"A company or corporation is notable if it meets ANY ONE of the following criteria:
The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself."
the emphasis is on "ANY ONE", which GH avisualagency more than fulfills. as a matter of fact, if you look up "GH avisualagency" on google you will see 831 results and if you look up "GHavisualagency" (their common alternate spelling) on google you will see 498 results. if you look up "Graphic Havoc" (the actual name that GH stands for and another commonly known name for the company) you will find 771 results. another name that they are commonly listed as"GHava" gets 828 results. 831 + 498 + 771 + 828 = 2928, which negates the above grounds for deletion in the 1st place. google those 4 ways to look up GH avisualagency and you will see very clearly that they more than amply meet the criteria as delineated by Wikipedia. (google #s vary constantly so please bear this in mind.)
found on google:
GH avisualagency included as one of 23 groundbreaking New York studios in the new book, “Infiltrate | The Front Lines of the New York Design Scene” by Alexander Gelman
“some of the most original design thinkers and practitioners New York has to offer today”
- Alexander Gelman
“It's hard to say whether Gelman has discovered a new direction for American design, or whether he's merely unearthed a mutant, semi-underground strain. But there's an introspection here that's rarely found in American design which even in its more avant garde guises maintains a muscular directness and immediacy.”
- Creative Review, March 2005

Inspectorpanther 20:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.118.48 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 14 December 2005; user later changed attribution
  • Comment. The above user (207.237.118.48/Inspectorpanther) blanked my user page [1] and my talk page [2], probably as a result of this AfD nomination. This vote is the user's first edit aside from the blankings. | Klaw ¡digame! 22:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • that was a mistake and i already explained it on lerner's talk. it had nothing to do with this. Inspectorpanther 20:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The quotation from "Creative Review" is about Gelman's book as a whole, not about GH specifically. The book's website has an "About Infiltrate" section, which says: "Well known, lesser known and completely yet unknown studios are featured in the book". So inclusion in the book as such isn't much evidence of notability. (I don't have the book; maybe what it says about GH is evidence of notability.) Gareth McCaughan 08:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 22:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Changing vote to Abstain. Not clear what the situation is here and don't have time to pursue it further. -- JJay 04:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • DO NOT Delete. I see no grounds for deletion here. Wikimeister 04:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.104.203 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 15 December 2005
  • User's first edit. | Klaw ¡digame! 00:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This user has been editing the user pages for several other meatpuppets that voted on this page, including DirtyAttic, Cmeyer, Fearofnormalcy, Blively, and Dwdaniell. (see his contribs) It may be that they are all the same person. | Klaw ¡digame! 04:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • are you absolutely 100% sure that they are the same person? did you use your spyware to check all their IPs and track each of their locations? what did it say please? Inspectorpanther 06:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • comment There are some associated redirects at GHava, GH avisualagency, Graphic Havoc, and GHava™ Tom Harrison (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • keep. This looks like a very legitimate entry to me. No need to to mark for deletion. SamSpellman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.224.5 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 15 December 2005
  • Second edit from that IP address. First was on Apr 21, 2005. | Klaw ¡digame! 00:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and additionally ignore multiple "DO NOT Delete" votes by the same author. --jackohare 00:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP. Minifoo 17:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC) (original edit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.139.240 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 15 December 2005)
  • User's first edit. [3] | Klaw ¡digame! 00:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I strongly doubt this is actually this user's first edit. Notice how all in favor of keeping this up use the same style and are not logged in. --jackohare 01:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, I agree. | Klaw ¡digame! 01:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • In the context of the advertisement on the website revealed below, I actually don't think it's a sockpuppet. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 23:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your gallant defense. Ambush Commander! I have every right to vote as the rest of you. Anyone who wants to accuse me of anything can put it on my talk page and not be like snarky old hens. xoxo Minifoo 17:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe that Ambush Commander was making a distinction between sockpuppets and meatpuppets. See WP:SOCK for more details on what those terms mean. | Klaw ¡digame! 18:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • For the umpteenth time, klaw, STOP HARARASSING ALL THE NEW USERS! your constant name-calling is getting really boring. if you truly wanted the AfD voting process to play itself out you wouldn't be on here obsessively spying on everyone nonstop. being perceived as a bully by the wiki community is not going to help your cause. Inspectorpanther 19:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, does not meet criteria.--nixie 01:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Please do not delete us. There are tons of GH avisualagency collaborators listed on Wikipedia that discuss projects in which GH avisualagency has been involved in creatively. We are in the process of adding more information discussing the art exhibitions GH avisualagency has been involved with domestically as well as internationally.
On a separate note, The Designers Republic are listed here. Why is GH avisualagency being marked for deletion. GHava is the same type of collective and have collaborated with many of the same people. This is not making any logical sense.--lerner
  • Delete, spam, sockpuppet-o-rama. The latter isn't a criteria for deletion, but as they've spent their time trying to sway a vote which isn't happening instead of attempting to verify the claims made in this article, I'd be very surprised if this was actually notable. Plus "Introduction by John Robinson. Essay by Helen Walters. Captions by Helen Walters ISBN 1-86154-268-2" at the end leads me to suspect copy-and-paste (captions to what?) and therefore copyvio. --Last Malthusian 10:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - If you like I will delete the captions by Helen Walters, was just attempting to give credit where credit is due. please read my talk page for info regarding the vandalism.--lerner
  • Vote changed to Abstain. Believe it or not, I err on the side of inclusion when information is verifiable and NPOV, and the article isn't an attempt to catalogue everything that exists. I don't think they meet WP:CORP, but it is a guideline, not a policy, and I'm not sure if it really suits an organisation like this. I can't vote to keep, but I'm not happy with delete, either, so abstain it is. --Last Malthusian 13:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • In light of the current rewrite with all the ad copy at the top, I'm back to Delete (last time, I promise). Clearly we aren't going to be able to maintain this as an encyclopaedic article. This is the reason we have notability criteria - because we can't keep an article NPOV and free of unverified facts if the only people interested in it are the subjects. --Last Malthusian 09:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Nfitz 14:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
change vote to Keep. Article has been significantly impreoved and NPOVed in the last 5 days. Lots of references to this bunch on the net. Lots of Google hits. Nfitz 20:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • keep: How can you have other design firms and not show GHAVA ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.244.231 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 15 December 2005
  • User's first edit. [5] | Klaw ¡digame! 15:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • DO NOT Delete As a musician, I can say without fear of contridiction that GH avisualagency™ is a legitimate art collective, as we've considered using them for previous projects. I see NO reason why they should be deleted, while other artists we've considered, such as Shepard Fairey are still listed. Fearofnormalcy 18:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • User's first edit. [6] | Klaw ¡digame! 18:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as mere advertising. CSD-bot 19:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • comment see User talk:CSD-bot. This is a joke account and should not be counted as a vote.Lerner 20:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
See User talk:lerner for related discussion from last-night. lerner
  • keep Blively 20:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • User's first edit. [7] | Klaw ¡digame! 22:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP...KEEP...KEEP!!!!! great for inspiration and a great design comp....... let them stay //DIRTYATTIC// —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirtyattic (talk • contribs) 20:27, 15 December 2005
  • User's first edit. [8] | Klaw ¡digame! 22:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as while GHava is a business, they are also a legitimate artist collective whose work (individually and as a group) is widely recognized beyond their commercial output - gallery shows (most recently at the 222 Gallery in Philadelphia, books and art magazines, etc. I would argue that GH deserve a Wikipedia article on that basis, and should be considered not just on the grounds of WP:CORP but in the more general ideas of WP:Notability, WP:Verifiability, WP:Importance. (dwd 20:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC))
  • Weak Delete as per nom - Rudykog 20:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • comment also complies with Wikipedia:Notability (people): Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field. Lerner 20:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: It appears that this is only in your opinion. - Rudykog 20:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP. GH is a notable and influential artist collective. - --Cmeyers 20:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.59.20.65 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 15 December 2005
  • User's first edit. | Klaw ¡digame! 22:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP - I can't believe that there is even such a debate on this issue! Yes, from my understanding, GH do commercial work but are primarily an artist collective that remain so through such work. The huge explosion of street art and the ensuing school of design that stems from it is hardly deletable. If you do not allow GH in, who are a very well-loved (internationally) outfit, then you will need to remove all of the others who live and practise the same balance of art and commercial art. That means no Shepard Fairey, no Futura, nobody that has walked the necessary line of artistry and design work. Are you to deny people interested in this generations leaders in street art/design culture voice and a place in Wikipedia? That is simply ERASING culture...Benveenyc 21:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • User's first edit. [10] | Klaw ¡digame! 22:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP. GHava has had an indelible influence on art and design and should be suitably recognized with a wikipedia entry. - --jtiranasar
  • User's first edit. [11] Note the similar formats for all keep votes on this page. | Klaw ¡digame! 22:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment:this has been linked on other web portals asking for people to vote.see newstoday Lerner 22:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. It appears that GHava itself is advertising for votes on its own Web site. | Klaw ¡digame! 22:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment is there a problem with letting other people in our field know about what is happening here?Lerner 22:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Generally, these appeals result in scores of never-used-Wikipedia-before users blindly voting keep based solely on their experience with the subject. I do not claim that you do not have some loyal members, but their lack of knowledge in the policies of Wikipedia regarding inclusion and exclusion of topics is not constructive to the AfD process, even if the subject turns out to be notable. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 22:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Nothing wrong with that. It simply is NOT what Wikipedia is about. It is not a popularity contest and it's not about winning votes. It also is not a soapbox for any old 'artists' collective' or advertising agency. When you guys gain enough prominence to warrant an inclusion it will happen without your intervention. Chelman 22:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • it is interesting to note that newstoday.com's public posting about this AfD has brought both DELETE as well as KEEP votes from new users, rendering the topic of fairness of public posting questionable. it is also interesting that if you go to the newtoday.com site, one can see that there is a lively debate both for and against the article. also want to mention that newstoday is a totally separate entity from GH and not affiliated in any way. they posted this independently and of their own volition. Inspectorpanther 05:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Your claim is misleading. Assuming all new-user votes are a result of the public appeal for support, it has yielded 17 "keep" votes and 4 "delete" votes. | Klaw ¡digame! 05:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but reserving the right to change my mind if I find more evidence of notability. (BTW, see [12] for Tom Smith's response to his article's VfD.)--SarekOfVulcan 22:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable. One of many thousands of advertising agencies. Calling yourself an artists' collective does not actually make you one. This is just a regular old commercial venture. Even if GH WAS an artists' collective pur sang it still wouldn't warrant inclusion due to their insignificance at this time. Staging a campaign to influence the vote only strenghtens my opinion. Chelman 22:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Was going to do weak delete, but changed my mind after reviewing WP:CORP (although only a proposed guideline). Would like to say delete because of business's clear keep campaign primarily for purposes of advertising. Although it possibly comes close to notability according to the article's contents (which needs major cleaning up and de-advertising), it only does so by association with bigger names and has no notability in its own right (except that of a conference whose name is misspelt in the article). jnothman talk 00:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clearly a vanity page. Get this garbage out of here, please! --Coolcaesar 04:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I reiterate my vote above for deletion. Lerner tried to make a personal appeal to me. I reviewed the article again. The small number of installations in minor galleries and museums reinforces my conclusion that this non-notable art collective does not deserve a Wikipedia article. I also note that not a single top-tier university library or museum has started collecting this group's work. The only people interested in this group's junk are third-rate scholars who couldn't get tenure at UC Berkeley, let alone admission. Come back when you get picked up by a real museum like SFMOMA or the Pompidou Centre. --Coolcaesar 18:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "Delete". Sorry GHava - I have seen your work and been to see you speak at conferences. Your work is good but I would not say timeless nor particularly groundbreaking. I do not agree with tDR inclusion either.
I think this is clearly a vanity page. Did GHava author this? This article lists services offered, if you refer to an article on Jan Tschichold for instance, this article does not list the services he offered, the only reason I can see for listing this information is commercial gain, and not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. Ditto that for Peter Saville's listing, Alan Fletcher's listing, and many others.
Also, Pentagram is not on here, one of the most important design studios of the modern era. They have been FAR more widely publicised, awarded, praised and have done FAR more to further the cause of modern design, have broken much more new territory and dragged graphic design in much more interesting directions. Particularly the collaboration between new media, graphic design and architecture that they foster.
It is, in my opinion, laughable that GHava hold themself to the same strata of importance as REAL pioneers and trailblazers such as Paul Rand, Saul Bass, El Lissitzky, Jan Tshicold, Josef Muller-Brockman, Neville Broday etc.
In regards to their claim as a serious 'art collective' - they call themself an agency - that in itself an obviously commercial position to take. The work they list and show is mainly for premier brands, Coke, Adidas, Volkswagen and MTV - perhaps they came to design from a art background, but they are obviously and wholly working within the commercial design service realm, but maintain an 'artistic' practise on the side. EmohDesign 04:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As Per Nom. 70.18.17.248 20:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • User's first edit. Inspectorpanther 20:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE. they have a website. they are not pioneers. they are shameless self promoters. Wikipedia should stand for knowledge acquisition on topics that have stood the test of time and the march of history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.242.71.34 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 16 December 2005
  • Tag corrected. User's second edit. | Klaw ¡digame! 23:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP Mrethan 21:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC) I notice that many entries on this page keep being deleted. This is supposed to be a forum of open debate. Erasing others' statements is intellectually dishonest. One can only wonder if the vandals are employees of competing agencies. In any case, this is what I originally wrote: This company clearly meets wiki's requirements for inclusion, in spite of the fact that those requirements are slanted in favor of public corporations. GH--which is almost as much a collective of artists as it is a company, and deserves inclusion on that basis alone--is admittedly in no danger of being used to index stock prices any time soon. But these five individuals have made an impact far disproportionate to their numerical strength through their seminal work with many listed companies, such as volkswagon and MTV (aka Viacom). And unlike many design agencies, these guys have had fine art shows as well. Wikipedia is enhanced by their inclusion. It should be, among other things, a storehouse of current knowledge about design, not simply a memorial to past movements.
  • User's first edit. Also, there have been no entries deleted on this page, for or against. | Klaw ¡digame! 21:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You are correct, Sarek. I restored the missing comment below with a tag that explains why it's out of sequence. Thanks for the catch. | Klaw ¡digame! 01:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I will vouch for that statement, except for one small thing. Keithlaw removed Lerner's statement that User:69.143.140.4 was possibly a sockpuppet. I have reinstated that by saying that it was the anon IP's sixth edit. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 22:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Please note that text updates have been made to the GH avisualagency article in order to conform to the Wikipedia standards for inclusion.Lerner 21:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.140.4 (talk • contribs) 16:51, December 16, 2005
  • Same user voted "delete" above. | Klaw ¡digame! 22:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keithlaw, you must be mistaken. A quick look at the user's contributions reveals that he/she has only edited this article once. Are you sure? — Ambush Commander(Talk) 22:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Hm, you're right. One of the delete votes above is tagged incorrectly. That is, I tagged it incorrectly. I'll figure it out. Thanks. | Klaw ¡digame! 23:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Fixed. | Klaw ¡digame! 23:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - new article text makes GHava sound like it's not a corporation. Well? Which is it? Also, the extensive external links and references do make it seem slightly notable at best. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 22:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain - after much deliberation, I cannot tell what exactly this article is about. The rewrite makes things a lot foggier: there isn't even a link to their website, let alone the names of the five people in this organization. Is it an organization or a corporation, and do any of those links constitute external press? The situation with the meatpuppets has not helped these proceedings at all. I am not a deletionist, but I cannot in good faith vote delete or keep for this nomination. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 23:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • DO NOT Delete. This company clearly meets wiki's requirements for inclusion, in spite of the fact that those requirements are slanted in favor of public corporations. GH--which is almost as much a collective of artists as it is a company, and deserves inclusion on that basis alone--is admittedly in no danger of being used to index stock prices any time soon. But these five individuals have made an impact far disproportionate to their numerical strength through their seminal work with many listed companies, such as volkswagon and MTV (aka Viacom). And unlike many design agencies, these guys have had fine art shows as well. Wikipedia is enhanced by their inclusion. As for the detractors? I'm not seeing much thought put into their calls for deletion, beyond sycophantic adhesion to the arbitrary "1K" plus google hits metric, which GH meets in any case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.27.111.121 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 14 December 2005
  • Comment. This comment was lost to a vandalism revert (reverted by me) yesterday, but the text is identical to that of Mrethan's above, so it appears that the user re-posted his comments after the deletion. | Klaw ¡digame! 00:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment the GH avisualagency article does not violate the rules for inclusion any more than these articles below:

(note: the below articles are valid and have a place on Wikipedia just as the GH avisualagency article has a place here.)

Lerner 00:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
As a wise Wikipedian (Just zis Guy, maybe?) once said, "Cruft does not justify more cruft." Nominate all of those articles for deletion if you think they genuinely do not deserve articles (but don't do it to make a point, of course). —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-17 03:10:52Z
  • Comment the point is not to be an anit-creativity nazi and exterminate those articles just because one is cloistered from and ignorant of burgeoning art movements. it is rather to add to wikipedia so as to help inform others that may be seeking further knowledge on such. i just read the updated GH article and i hardly think that 12 universities having GH's work in their library collections constitutes being labeled as "cruft". Inspectorpanther 16:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment the ONLY difference between a red colored user and a blue one is that the blue ones set up their user page. the majority of users on wiki don't set up their user page. in fact, the vast majority of users on here don't even set up an account. it's supposed to be an informative website. just because someone wants to be more private does NOT discount their vote nor does it make them a sockpuppet. i have been using this site since its inception. just because i finally felt there was a discussion worth creating an account and jumping into does not mean i am a sock/meat puppet. incessantly labeling every single new user as such is not only abusive but it goes against the spirit of wikipedia as a public community based website for all, not just those who feel like they need to have a user page. the etiquette is towards not biting the new users. you were once a new user too. try to bear that in mind before throwing around such insults. Inspectorpanther 16:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Even though he says he has been here for years Kate's tool says that actually his : First edit 2005-12-14 22:39:37
  • one can be a user of wikipedia and not edit anything for however long they wish. the frequency of editing does not make you more important to the site. without users who come to research, it would be pointless. Inspectorpanther 20:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Excellent point, Inspector. But in looking at voting for AfDs, users' experience is a legitimate criterion, per Wikipedia policy. I hope many of the new users you and Lerner have recruited will stay and contribute to other articles. | Klaw ¡digame! 21:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • What he says about red links versus blue is correct. There are several notable cases where contributors purposely have left their user pages blank in order to help discourage the notion that users without user pages are less credible (it has been, however, of minimal effect). Inspectorpanther seems to have a solid grasp about Wikipedia's policies, even if he only has several edits. However, concerning meat puppets, it is general practice to make comments on the number of contributions users have when participating in AfD discussions. There is nothing wrong with labeling "User's first edit." — Ambush Commander(Talk) 20:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Do not delete the Graphic Havoc article from this website. They are a valid collective that provide individuals, companies, and art groups with support, work, ideas, and inspiration. They are a professional and creative group that are equally valid in the coorperate world as well as artistic communities. This kind of dual existance is rare and neccessary. I am not sure who has the time for negative comments towards people that handle themselves in a both professional and sensitive manner. It is my beleif that individuals that have the time to "diss" hard working people are nothing more than haters or someone with a bone to pick and their comments should be taken with a block of salt. Obviously someone that has free time to output negative are simply not using their time wisely. Time wasted on spreading negativity are neither proactive and most likely not productive. Negative chatter, in my mind, equals too much free time.
- Thank You WOLF01208.140.16.50 17:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • User's first edit. | Klaw ¡digame! 18:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - There needs to be more discussion about the points the meatpuppets have brought up. Sure, they may be meatpuppets, but that doesn't make arguments they present any less valid. That only means that we should take them with a healthy dose of salt. Totally ignoring them, in my opinion, is not very good. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 20:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree. The purpose of AfD is not to delete articles without debate, but to examine the merits of articles. In this particular case, however, it seems to me that the meatpuppet comments above assert notability without proving (or providing significant evidence of) notability. Working with listed companies is not evidence of notability. The existence of entries for comparable companies is not per se evidence of notability (per HorsePunchKid above). And none of this addresses the advert/vanity issue, as the article was created and almost entirely written by one of the principals in the firm. The sock- and meat-puppetry (and two instances of vandalism) are secondary to the discussion; their importance is in the tally, which is why I've tagged them. | Klaw ¡digame! 21:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: What about this organization makes it of interest to the public? The page appears to be some attempt at advertising or promotion, a free hosting of an unimpressive resume. If it meets the criteria for deletion, it should be deleted. 134.154.232.122 22:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • User's third edit. | Klaw ¡digame! 05:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • comment for new research in favor of keeping this article please see (Talk)Lerner
  • KEEP: If not for being blessed with talent & creativity, then simply for being young, motivated and courageous. The people behind GH avisualagency have embraced the world with their ideas full force. Those of you who say they are not innovative are just plain silly (for lack of a better word). Is there any art or music that is not influenced by something that came before it? I have not seen everything that GH avisualagency has produced but what I have seen is extremely philosophical and having this article listed on this website is very necessary because it is one more resource that can help the lucky people who stumble upon it to grow and see other artists perspectives about this huge world we all live in together. Oh and luckily I live in the USA where freedom of speech ROCKS. PixyStarGirlPixyStarGirl 00:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • User's first edit. | Klaw ¡digame! 04:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Unfortunantely, talent/creativity/youthfulness/motivation/courage can manifest itself without notability. When we discuss a deletion, we do not discuss the merits of an organization. We know the article could be encyclopedic, and the main case being made against it is notability. Claiming that the site is innovative and philosophical doesn't mean much in this aspect: can you back up these claims? Why is Ghava notable? — Ambush Commander(Talk) 00:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP: Whether GH is categorized as a small corporation, commercial agency or artist collective is besides the point. It is just a title. What’s more important for this discussion is to focus on the work GH has created. As a whole, their work and skills range from commercial to fine arts and many times meet somewhere in the middle, a combination that is lacking in most commercial work today. Graphic Havoc is both a notable and creatively influential design organization. As a first time Wikipedia user, I have read through this entire discussion and am fairly surprised at the adolescent tone of the debate. I’d like to stay focused and say that I see no real reason for the deletion of Graphic Havoc. The vanity issue seems to be the most reoccurring point, however, I read through the guidelines and found this line, “it is preferable for the initial author not to be an owner or employee of or an investor in the company”. Note the word preferable. Grounds for deletion would surely need more backing than this.Katiedecker 00:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • User's first edit. | Klaw ¡digame! 04:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It makes us look at the article with more scrutiny. In the end, we need to find another reason to delete it. That reason is notability. Back up your claims that GH is a "creatively influential design organization" with fact. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 00:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - User:Coolcaesar made a very strong comment about the notability of all the organizations that had copies of GH's work. I decided to check it out myself, and Oregon State University does not seem at all like a second-rate college. Admittedly, it's only one college (I didn't check the others), and it's only one book, but it would be nice if Coolcaesar explained further. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 00:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • your comment inspired me to add wikipedia links to all the universities listed in the article. thank you! yes, they are far from being considered "third-rate". much to the contrary, as evidenced below (please read the respective articles for yourself if you want to check):
  • Oregon State University
  • University of Washington: "the largest university in the Pacific Northwest and the oldest public university on the West Coast of the United States."
  • Concordia University: "large urban university in Montreal, Quebec, Canada." with many accolades
  • Western Washington University: "consistently ranked among the top schools in its category and according to US News and World Report's ranking, is the number 2 public master’s-granting school in the western region, while placed 18th overall (both public and private)"
  • University of Nevada, Las Vegas: "It is the major university of southern Nevada. The university is ranked in the category of Doctoral/Research Universities-Intensive by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and has over 1,000 faculty members."
  • Plymouth State University
  • University of Tulsa: "ranked among the top 100 universities in the nation by US News and World Report and named by the Princeton Review as one of America's best universities."
  • Monash University: " Australia's largest university with over 55,000 students...one of Australia's 'Group of Eight' leading universities, and was recently ranked by The Times Higher Education Supplement THES at number 33 in its annual ranking of the world's top 200 universities for 2005. Its Engineering Faculty was also ranked number 1 in Australia and approximately number 16 in the world according to THES 2004/2005"
  • Lesley University
  • Bowling Green State University: "offers over 200 undergraduate programs, as well as master's and doctoral degrees in a variety of areas, including the nation's first Ph.D. program in photochemical science and one of the first undergraduate program in Neuroscience"
  • Columbia College Chicago: "the largest arts and communications college in the United States"
for all these venerable universities worldwide to deem GH's 1st book to be worthy of acquisition, i believe constitutes ample grounds for notability. Inspectorpanther 02:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Purchasing a book for a university library does not assert notability. It could do so but it doesn't assert it by default. Many libraries purchase ALL books from certain publishers or distributors. Others purchase everything their staff request etc. etc. There is a multitude of reasons that a university could purchase a given book. Without knowledge of their policies it is impossible to assert an article's importance. 62.59.192.130 14:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP: Why would anybody want do delete this article? This is excatly what I love and use Wikipedia for, whenever I see the work of somebody or an collective, it's nice to know that you can get a few facts on wikipedia. It's normally quite hard to get information about modern artist and wikipedia sure makes it a lot easier to gather information about them. This article is useful. Just because some of you aren't interessted in design or art, doesn't mean this entry is not useful for anybody. Actually makes me quiet angry that something like this gets considered for deletion. Roland g 01:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • User's first edit. | Klaw ¡digame! 04:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It seems very simple to me. Artists and Open-minded people want to keep this article and business minded folks who feel threatened want it deleted.PixyStarGirl 01:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • What evidence brings you to that conclusion? Have you read the previous discussion? — Ambush Commander(Talk) 02:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • That's awesome. What does that have to do with how the article meets WP:CORP again? --Last Malthusian 02:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • i believe that this article falls more along the lines of WP:BIO than WP:CORP as they are a collective of artists who make a living from selling their collaborative artwork. Inspectorpanther 03:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If so, then pages on the individuals would be appropriate. WP:BIO only covers individuals, not groups of individuals. Groups of individuals fall through the cracks in some spots. However, because this article is under a corporate name, including the regular use of the ™ symbol (asserting intellectual property rights over the name), WP:CORP is more appropriate. Again, feel free to create separate articles on the individual artists, each of which can be assessed on its notability merits vis-à-vis WP:BIO. | Klaw ¡digame! 04:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • that is the equivalent of saying that bands should not be on here but only the individual musicians that make up the band. art collectives function in the same way as bands where a group of creative individuals pool their talents together to make art. just because the wikipedia categories are limited, does it not bring attention to the fact that one might need to be created to allow for articles about art collectives? also, nowhere on WP:BIO did i read that it had to be about an individual person. it does however say that it can be about artists. why can it not be about a group of artists? Inspectorpanther 06:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • WP:BIO doesn't apply to groups of people. It states clearly that it applies to "biographies," which this article clearly is not. There are separate guidelines for some groups, such as bands. | Klaw ¡digame! 05:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: The entry is a resume. No one is "threatened", it just is not that important yet. Perhaps at a later point in time the contribution to culture will be more significant. A note to the supporters: whining about "anti-creativity nazis", "haters" and "business minded folks" does nothing to show the value of your organization. The list submitted by lerner shows remarkable egotism as well as a disregard for the community he so desperately craves to belong to. To compare one's fledgeling design agency to certain of those movements, some of which are from the sixties and seventies, is preposterous. If this company truly is worthy of encyclopedic record, let it happen without dispute, when it is deserved. TomPeters 03:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • User's first edit. Inspectorpanther 05:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • what list did lerner submit where he compares himself to movements from the 60's & 70's? there never was such a list. Inspectorpanther 03:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Ant Farm, General Idea and Yellow House Artist Collective are from the sixties and seventies. Red Herring, Guerrilla Girls are from the eighties. TomPeters 04:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • that list was referring to the right of those articles to exist on wikipedia, not a comparison of statistical longevity. longevity in itself does not necessarily constitute notability. as an art historian, i personally know several members of guerilla girls and red herring and GH is just as comparable in significance. Inspectorpanther 05:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Because of all the controversy and obsessive justifications, I took a look at the group's website. Some of the other companies from that list...are on their client list! Nice company, selling out it's own clients to try to make a case for themselves. Now all those entries will be scrutinized the same way. And Inspector, personally knowing an artist does not a degree in art history bestow. CoolCeasar hit the nail on the head with his assessment of those schools, your elaborations only made them look more lame. TomPeters 18:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • comment Please see (Talk) for updated rebuttal regarding meat/sockpuppets. Lerner 03:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm for GH, they are nice people. trust me i've once took pictures of them, very friendly... almost like if they where socialistic in mind! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredrik Skogkvist (talk • contribs) 13:07, 18 December 2005
  • User's first mainspace or wikispace edit. I presume this vote is Keep. | Klaw ¡digame! 15:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - just one of many other art collectives/agencies/call it what you like. Just because other insignificant agenices made it through the Wikipedia process doesn't mean that even more should do so. 62.59.192.130 14:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: advertising for non-notable entity. The flood of meatpuppets (1) reduces my inclination towards charity and (2) makes me worry that keeping the article accurate and unpuffy may be difficult in the face of their demonstrated willingness to pervert Wikipedia into an advertising forum. The existence of other pages describing non-notable entities proves only that Wikipedia is not yet perfect (duh). Gareth McCaughan 17:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment - Indeed point (2) is the most important reason for me to vote for deletion now. Chelman 20:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I respect creators throughout the world. However, a search for "GH avisualagency" on Google returns less than 70 results. I doubt this warrants an entry on Wikipedia which is definitely not meant to be an advertising platform for more or less new coming artists - unless they belong to general education. My three cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.146.131.215 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 18 December 2005
  • User's first edit. | Klaw ¡digame! 18:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I think 222.146.131.215 must have mistyped or something; I get 845 hits for the same search. (Which still isn't terribly many, for an entity whose primary purpose is in effect the generation of publicity.) Gareth McCaughan 23:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • i apologize in advance for being redundant but if you look up "GH avisualagency" on google you will see 845 results and if you look up "GHavisualagency" (their common alternate spelling) on google you will see 498 results. if you look up "Graphic Havoc" (the actual name that GH stands for and another commonly known name for the company) you will find 771 results. another name that they are commonly listed as"GHava" gets 828 results. 845 + 498 + 771 + 828 = 2942. (please click on the links to see results. #s will vary as google results constantly fluctuate.) all of these alternate spellings and aliases are listed in the article and there are wikipedia redirects for each one that also go to it. Inspectorpanther 00:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • 2942 Google hits is still a very small number. Some firms you and Lerner have claimed are comparable in notability to GHava have far more hits - "Designers Republic" (91,100 hits), "Guerilla Girls" (72,800 hits), and Prefuse73 (50,500 hits). | Klaw ¡digame! 00:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • minimum # of google hits is not wikipedia policy for inclusion, nor is notability. please see WP:N: "There is currently no official policy on notability." "lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion, because (among other things) this isn't specifically stated in the deletion policy" Inspectorpanther 01:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • While it's not official policy, notability is a guideline and is widely used in practice as a major criterion in AfDs. It has become accepted practice, although as you probably saw, it's an ongoing debate, with many users wanting to codify notability rules as policy, and many others wanting them eliminated. In addition, you've spent a significant amount of time arguing that GHava is notable, both in comments on this page and by filling the article with possible points for notability. Are you now arguing that notability isn't relevant? | Klaw ¡digame! 01:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: On counting up google hits: there is no point adding the result nubmers up: many pages with "GHava" will also have "GHavisualagency" so adding is not appropriate. If you want the union of the results, use the google OR keyword. Search for Ghava OR ghavisualagency etc. jnothman talk 03:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the tip. A search on "Ghava OR ghavisualagency" yields just 874 results. [13] | Klaw ¡digame! 03:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Do not delete. GH avisualagency is a vital force in art and graphic design- well worthy of inclusion on wikipedia.Bretteliza 02:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • User's first edit. | Klaw ¡digame! 02:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete without protection. Enough elements of the article, such as the first paragraph, read as irreparably vapid ad copy mixed with the sort of managerial buzzwords that I expect to see when I read Dilbert, that even if this is a legitimate topic for an encyclopedia article (which I am as yet unconvinced of), I think it'd be best just to bulldoze this mess away and start afresh. And for those who care, this is my 1,179th edit. The Literate Engineer 06:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • comment please review newly edited GH ava article. Lerner 15:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    • KEEP** this company! this is an important company... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Estoyrubia (talk • contribs) 20:01, 19 December 2005
  • User's first edit. | Klaw ¡digame! 20:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP Ghava™ is an art collective, not only one of most inspiring design studios in New York and in the world.

Their work, artistic and commercial, is very important because of their original experimental multi-disciplinary approach. It's possible to find precursors of the figure of the artist/designer in the history of art and design (pre-raffaelites, the Bauhaus school, Kandinskij, Munari, Warhol, only to name a few) and it would be stupid to consider ghava™ only as a mainstream advertising company. They operate in the border zone between art and design, between experimentation and design work, between research and commercial needs. Keep ghava™ in wikipedia. Superexpresso 21:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

  • User's first edit. | Klaw ¡digame! 22:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


Inspectorpanther 22:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. A number of voters above appear to be sockpuppets or meatpuppets, and Wikimeister (talk · contribs) (who has also voted here) seems to have intentionally made a null edit to their userpages to disguise this fact (creating bluelinks). This applies to Cmeyers (talk · contribs), Dwdaniell (talk · contribs), Dirtyattic (talk · contribs), Blively (talk · contribs), Fearofnormalcy (talk · contribs), and Wikimeister himself is a very new user. Wikimeister's edits seem to be mostly minor grammatical edits and word substitution. -- Curps 05:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I want everyone to see how ridiculous it is for blues to hold more weight than reds. It's sheer bigotry! This is an issue that I hope the admins will examine more closely. If this discussion has taught anyone anything, it is that the AfD process on Wikipedia is riddled with flaws. Hence, all the heated discussions surrounding policy changes. So much bickering on here and so many narcs. "O brave new world that has such people in it." [14] Wikimeister 05:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • And speaking of vanity articles... some breaking news!:
  • Tsk Tsk Tsk! The hypocrisy truly runs deep. Wikimeister 16:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This is getting very silly indeed. Wikimeister, the purpose of this discussion is to see community consensus. People who register because they were invited to vote by an external source cannot be counted as part of this community, whether they're red or blue or green with purple spots. Hopefully someone will close this today before any more bad feeling spreads. --Last Malthusian 09:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "Ending is better than mending." [15] Wikimeister 18:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikimeister, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's deletion process. Being a new user does not help your credibility on one sentence votes. You are welcome to argue and present facts in favor of the article's inclusion, but simply saying "I see no grounds for deletion here" does not contribute anything useful to the discussion besides another voice saying "I agree." For long-time contributors, their approval/disapproval means a lot, but without that credibility, people will be prone to discount your opinions if they are not backed up with facts.
If you did sign up in order to vote specifically for this issue, I hope you are understanding and continue to edit Wikipedia. Meatpuppets can become valued Wikipedia contributors, and the sooner we clear up misunderstanding, the better off we will be. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 20:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete per WP:CORP and sockpuppet invasion. Pilatus 17:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • comment "Anyone who contributes to this encyclopedia is called a Wikipedian."Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia "Wikipedians are people who form The Wikipedia Community." Wikipedia:Wikipedians-Lerner 17:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Um, no. See WP:SOCK, which is official policy, and which says, "Neither a sockpuppet nor a brand-new, single-purpose account holder is a member of the Wikipedia community.". Zoe (216.234.130.130 00:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC))
  • Delete non-notable agency. Come back after you're famous. 128.2.220.215 19:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, extreme nn. And socks suck. Radiant_>|< 20:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn agency, advertising, far too many sockpuppets. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable, and the sock puppet attack. And ban all these sock puppets. Tempshill 18:50, 22 December 2005 (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.