Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Herring Artists

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. JeremyA 13:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Red Herring Artists

I am highly sceptical of this entry. The author has no other edits, and his only comments on the Talk page are highly defensive. Also, the grammar, capitalisation, and punctuation throughout the article are substandard; at the very least, it has to be copyread and wikified. In addition, he has left the bottom two sections blank for the last three months. It seems to be promotional, and I only find 28 Google hits for it (not enough to substantiate it being "regularly the subject of academic papers on art history and the history of design"). Also, the entire entry has been plagiarised from the About.com topic about this artists' collective. 216.158.31.195 16:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Well, actually, the About.com article is the Wikipedia article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • That too. 216.158.31.195 18:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It is? All Google gives for the first sentence of the article is a Wikipedia mirror (answers.com). Either way, only 28 Google results for "Red Herring Artists", and none for "Red Herring Artist Group" -> delete. --Idont Havaname 18:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • My bad. You're right - it's not even about.com, it's answers.com. 216.158.31.195 18:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • try google '"red herring" art' returns 214,000 of which the first relevant entry is 11th - "red herring studios" gives 97 results - "red herring artist group" is not a term that applies or is used in reference to them. DavidP 02:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Remove unverifiable assertions (e.g. prizes allegedly won by artists who are not named, quoted opinion without source), condense into a sentence or two, and merge into Hove. --Tabor 19:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • assertions have been verified DavidP 02:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 05:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article doesn't appear to have satisfied any of the criteria for deletion under the deletion policy guidlines. it does not infringe any copyright, contains no useless directs or schemes gone awry and is not a source text nor dictionary definition. Perhaps you could consider it a vanity page - but if that were the case surely the author would have mentioned himself. (yes you've guessed - I was the original author, and I gain no benefit at all from the page). clearly the page has caused some concern and it is right to flag it up for consideration. in its defence I would like to say that it doesn't misrepresent anybody nor conflict with anybody elses interest. perhaps it deserves to be considered for cleanup or articles needing attention. But to delete it on the basis of its popularity or the number of hits it has had / google search results would surely endanger every page in wikipedia that wasn't of mainstream interest. A point of information for those not familiar with them, the Booker Prize is the most prestigious british literary prize, and the Turner Prize is the most prestigious british art award, i mention this because it might reflect on wether the subject of the page is 'notable' - I have remedied the lack of name or reference to the turner prize nominee.

Regarding 216.158.31.195's assertion that the page was plagiarised, that really is grasping at straws. It was not. I am sure that 216.158.31.195 (a username that redirects to Jasonglchu) is, as an undergradtuate, aware that academic papers are seldom published on the web and so will have little effect on their google presence. My apologies if this reply is too defensive or if my grammar is poor. ->Keep

DavidP 00:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate and share your concern that this page and your doubts about it are judged fairly and by as many people as possible user 216.158.31.195. why then did you delete the link (without explanation) from the red herring disambiguation page? Surely that is not very good form, it almost seems that you have decided that your decision is final. Or would you prefer that others dont stumble across this voting page who might have an interest in Red Herring but only those from the VFD page.

DavidP 00:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.