Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Radiohead.com

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Was originally listed as a speedy delete but the author objected so I'm listing it here. Note this is their first article so be nice! Theresa Knott 04:23, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletions please don't delete the radiohead.com article - i assume the name may have made the rules assume that it was promoting a website, but it is in fact and exploration of a series of artworks which happpen to be websites and the article incorporates the work of many people who will come and develop it. I tried to follow the link to defend it on its talk page but it just said that the article doesn't exist. I'm sorry if I'm doing this wrong but I'm rather panicked by the speedy deletion thing and find the layout of the talk page confusing. Thank you. User:Keirh uk

  • Hi! I panicked a but I've made it a stub. Heck, I'll make it a substub if it gets it off! Thanks for your kind and helpful messages, Theresa and Jonathan! People may find it helpful to view the website the article is about to help them judge the article's validity. As a Lemony Snicket fan I find it wryly amusing to see 'VFD' at the top of my page! And despite what Theresa said don't hold back, I am confident in the strength of my case! --Keirh uk 04:38, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Before casting a vote in this, I have some questions that I would like to have answered, along the lines of artistic content - since that is how the article's author is framing it:
      • Does radiohead.com constitute a work of art? Personally, I'd say yes. But being a work of art is not enough for Wikipedia to have an article about it. There is no doubt in my mind that radiohead.com is artistically interesting, and has quite a depth of unique content. And Wikipedia does chronicle individual works of art, if they are notable.
      • Is radiohead.com a *notable* work of art? There's the big question for me. Is radiohead.com serious art? Some art critics have begun to look at the WWW as an art form. Do those who "know" Internet Art look at it as being an important work? If yes, an article should be written - but - having an article does not equal archiving and cataloguing content.
      • Is Wikipedia the appropriate place for archiving and cataloguing this artwork's many forms? Here I begin to have serious doubts. What we are possibly looking at here is the beginnings of some original research on internet art, which is definitively *not* what Wikipedia is for. No doubt Radiohead.com deserves archiving and cataloguing somewhere, but I think this is not the place for that. Perhaps Wikisource?Kevyn 05:19, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Good questions. I would say yes, yes and don't know. I've looked at Wikisource and I can see your point, but I'm not sure how well it would fit there at the moment, but if people felt it should be moved there I would be happy to do so. I would then see the same discussion inevitably taking place there, but perhaps it will eventually find a stable home after schlepping round from hearing to hearing! --Keirh uk 12:12, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete at present, but see following: Keirh uk, my suggestion is that you keep working on the web as art. Take the content you now have and put it on your user page while you work. Develop some encyclopedic overview of the general subject, find a few other sites that might qualify, then, when you feel that you have the material for an artile on Web as art, write it. Within that article, set up a section on "Examples." Put the "radiohead.com" material as your first example and a second description as a second example. After that, go to the Radiohead article, insert a sentence saying, "The Radiohead.com website is an example of Web as art," do the same for other sites, etc. I think you can present a good help to Wikipedia that way, expand our coverage, and open up a new area for us. Good luck. Geogre 13:27, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • That's an interesting suggestion Geogre - I think you have put your finger on one of the problems regarding the placement of this article, which is that it is a new area and that it doesn't fit easily into any current category - Wikisource illustrates this clearly, I think. If I move the content to my user page can it still be worked on by my community? EDIT: Apparently not, so that wouldn't work - it needs to be able to be worked on by the community. It was a communal effort which I assembled here from material myself and a few co-authors did in a sprawling thread on a messageboard. I've put it on far from ideal xwiki.com as [1] and assuming the current consensus continues It's a case of it might be back at some point if I get around to writing the 'web as art' article. Thank you for your intelligent, civilised debate - I can be a touchy kinda guy but you lot make rejection painless! I would welcome any further suggestions, particularly if you have any better ideas for a home than xwiki.com. --Keirh uk 16:13, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Having had more time to understand the features of xwiki.com I am now happy that this is a much more suitable home for the page and offers me more flexibility regarding format etc. in ways which compromised my original article. Thank you all for your time. --Keirh uk 13:21, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

      • Keirh uk, all visitors can edit your user talk page. You can create a subpage with your article in progress and have visitors go to your user Talk page, make suggestions, and then collate into your subpage. At any rate, I think the article will lose out as a stand-alone because it's going to seem to be and be cited as an example of advertising. See your talk page. Geogre 21:24, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • Geogre, you are correct that visitors can edit a user page; however, I'm not sure suggesting that Keirh uk move radiohead.com to his user page is such a good idea: It's going to cause controversy, because there is a growing consensus that user pages should not be used to host projects that are not Wikipedia-related. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/User:Tmxxine for an example. Kevyn 23:15, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Quite right, Kevyn. N.b. that I am only suggesting that he work his draft article out there and that this be until he has an appropriate Wikipedia main space article, which he can then submit to the new genre of web-as-art. My apologies if I in any way suggested that he engage in the very activity that I denounce with User:tmxxe or User:informationecologist. Keith uk, I do hope you realize this important distinction: user pages are appropriate for drafts of Wikipedia articles only. Geogre 01:15, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: use of WP as a fansite. From the article: ... fans have been frantically catalogueing the content as new material is discovered. Indeed, the article is a catalog of stuff found at radiohead.com. Being a community effort, of course, the Wikipedia is the best place to do this. Not so -- you'll need to find free hosting somewhere else. I don't think optimism about the goals of the author is warranted. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:21, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Elf-friend 17:18, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only of interest to dedicated fans who should probably set up their own website. -- Necrothesp 12:50, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Holy crap! This makes the Pokemon/Star Trek zealots look reasonable. -- orthogonal 20:21, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Please, visit radiohead.com|MAINFRAME VERSION 1.2 and see for yourselves that it isn't a traditional fansite. it is a new way to do art, perhaps be very complicated for many of you to understand this, will we have to wait years until this is recognized as art? --Mifluki 19:04, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)