Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kut-kut

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. Sancho 21:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kut-kut

Kut-kut (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No reliable sources can be found. Banana 19:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Xiaphias 19:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral I suspect that it's notable, but there appears to be only one person online (Fred De'Asis) that is championing its cause. This may be one of those situations where the internet hasn't caught up to an older art form yet. I added the only unique reference I could find (to a touring art exhibit). There are a lot of copies of that same press release floating around when you do a Google Search. - Richfife 19:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete I'm switching to delete. I'm getting that itchy bullshit feeling that comes over me so much on AFD debates. - Richfife 20:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: This is pretty much the kind of obscure subject that wikipedia *should* cover. The article needs some serious expansion and some good sources, but otherwise I see no problem with its actual subject matter. Lorangriel 19:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - a single commercial source is insufficient verification. I also suspect promo going on: the link for "kut-kut" from the fdeasis.com description comes to the Wikipedia article. Check out edits from 69.47.178.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) too: remarkable, for such an obscure subject, that an anon IP from Illinois should know that an Oxford minister owns a kut-kut work called Carpe Diem. Gordonofcartoon 20:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Conjecture I wonder if there's a tagalog (Filipino) version of this article? If there isn't, I'm thinking there shouldn't be an English one. Does anyone know how to check? - Richfife 23:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
      • The Tagalog Wikipedia is at tl.wikipedia.org. I don't know if the translation is literal, but try this. Edit: That doesn't work. Hard to google. Morgan Wick 23:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I wonder if there's a tagalog (Filipino) version - yeah. I also tried Googling alternate spellings and sites relating to the region mentioned. No luck. I have a strong feeling that somebody involved created the article. If so, they ought to be able to provide - via the Talk page per WP:COI - some kind of documentation of this craft. They appear to know a lot about its history: "Peaked in mid 1800s" etc. Otherwise - Delete-delete. Gordonofcartoon 00:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Comment How about ukit? This is the next Tagalog word that I can think of. (Btw, I live in the Philippines) --- Tito Pao 02:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment enwiki has about three hundred times as many articles as tlwiki; the argument "If there's no Tagalog version, then delete the English version" would lead to deleting most of Category:Philippines. I'm guessing this is a common art form that one artist is promoting under a variant name for some reason; should probably be merged (with consideration given to WP:WEIGHT) if we can figure out what, exactly. cab 00:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Touché - Richfife 01:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • As it stands now, this is at least partly OR and we can't find any information that would back up the claims to notability in the one cited source. I would find it hard to believe that this would be promoted under a variant name; Occam's Razor would tend to favor, at least based on [1], the theory that this has largely been passed down by oral tradition (or made up whole cloth by DeAsis) and would quite possibly, due to its nature, have no reliable sources beyond that spinning from DeAsis. There are claims in the article that suggest otherwise, and an image with a citation that backs up my thinking that this is not a unique term, but there needs to be more sources, especially for the assertions, by the end of this AfD or this page is going bye-bye. Hint: I would suggest keepers make a trek to the local library for a print source, because I have a feeling a search for web sources will likely turn fruitless. Morgan Wick 04:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletions. cab 00:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - fact and historical, that makes it significant. Part of art history. Encyclopedic preservation of facts such as this article should be considered. Dragonbite 07:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • We can't be sure of how factual it is when it is insufficiently sourced. Morgan Wick 07:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Vote pending until verification by at least one Wikipedian who lives in the Visayas regions (although I'm inclined to vote for a keepdelete, unless more references are produced). Just because researchers from Manila hasn't published much about an infrequently-heard art form from a different region in the Philippines doesn't mean that this one was made up. --- Tito Pao 02:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I've posted a request to Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines. Gordonofcartoon 02:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm still trying to look this up in every reference available to me. So far, one Wikipedian who hails from the Visayas region (Pinay06) told me through IM that she hasn't heard of this. --- Tito Pao 07:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Without exception, the information that can be found about this on the Internet can be traced back to a single source, Mr. Fred DeAsis, the Filipino artist reviving this "lost art form".[2] That shows there is not only an issue of verifiablility (no reliable independent sources), but also of notability. It looks like a mystification by the artist. If real, an art form like this would have been well studied and documented by cultural anthropologists, and there should be no problem at all in finding independent sources.  --LambiamTalk 18:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    Addendum. Evidence that something is amiss here: the photograph in the article is said to be courtesy of rare art collector Dr. Robert Martin of Baguio City. The same user who uploaded the image – a single-purpose account that created the article Kut-kut – also uploaded the identical photograph, one day earlier and in a larger size, as Image:Samplekut-kut.jpg. Only this time the source is gived as art collector Dr. Rick Martin of Samar Island.  --LambiamTalk 18:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    Well spotted. Of course, it'd be helpful if the uploader, Mark10now (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), who clearly has insider knowledge to have access to the image, would show up to clarify things. No response so far to a Talk page request to do so. Gordonofcartoon 15:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I want to presume good faith here in that seeing the references, it seems that they are independent and come from 3rd party sources. But... it's only Fred De Asis who is frequently mentioned as the only one reviving the art form, and Kut-Kut being a "lost" art (if it really is) of the Philippines, makes it obscure and hard to verify even by us Filipinos. >_< Berserkerz Crit 11:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    Can you give an example of an independent third-party source that does not take its information on kut-kut from Mr. DeAsis?  --LambiamTalk 14:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless independent reliable sources can be found, which I rather doubt. Johnbod 01:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    Suggestion: Keep contents, perhaps. Instead of deleting the whole information about "kut-kut", merge with article about "encaustic" art or the like? Dragonbite 20:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Gordon,

I have no time to edit or argue with some pariahs of wikipedia.

I attended the the first Chicago area cultural exhibit/lecture of the lost art and it was astounding. Old artifacts, tools and art panels were presented. Art photos of the father and grandfather of the artist were shown.

Kut-kut aka kutkut, meaning to scratch is listed on Austranesian Basic Vocabulary database. You will get more response on google when searching kutkut without the dash.

The cultural art exhibit has been traveling around US cities for almost a year now.

Well, kut-kut is NOT a traditional artform (this is what you thought) in the Philippines. The technique is from certain indigenous tribe from one of the 7000 islands in the Philippines. I was told that each island has its own dialect! The Philippine itself has problems with its political/governmental history because of the colonizations. Do you expect reference on this artform from historians?

The artist's contention is to revive the form and technique which are based on research and what he learned from the father/grandfather and the remaining artworks in possession.

The art has been burried for so long and being revived via public exhibition.

It is such a shame when self proclaimed " wikipedia art experts" decides on artworks they have none seen!

The decision of few wikipedia "delete police" to delete will be a lost to millions who check on wikipedia but do not participate or edit contents.

If you want to post this, feel free to do so.

Mark User:Mark10now

Gordonofcartoon 00:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • still delete Insult Wikipedia editors, imply Wikipedia not worthy of covering pet topic, provide no sources to back up claims, say you're above such base things as evidence and verifiability. I've seen this WAY too many times. p.s. "KutKut" doesn't yield any more matches of interest. - Richfife 01:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - if there is an actual traveling art show, it would seem worth keeping. Obscurity makes the article very difficult to write, which may lead to a short article, but worthy of coverage. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    Doesn't it bother you that the claims in the article are completely unverifiable? How do you know the "old artifacts, tools and art panels" in the show, supposedly from Samar Island, were not actually fabricated in Spring 2006 in Arlington Heights, Illinois?
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.