<nettime> full text of Wikipedia Art deletion debate

[Edward Shanken <eshanken@artexetra.com>]

[For archival purposes, I copy below in ASCII form the complete text of the
Wikipedia Art deletion debate.  Retrieved from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikipedia_Art16
Feb 2009 - ES]

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 Speedy delete (CSD#A7) by User:Werdna. Equazcion •✗/C •
06:38, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
          o A deletion review was requested regarding this decision. See
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 15. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:15, 15
Feb 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Art

    Wikipedia Art (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This is an attempt to use Wikipedia as an "art platform". It is not
encyclopaedic. It can never be encyclopaedic by its very nature. It can't be
referenced to anything other than itself because it is an original work
based on Wikipedia. These guys need to get themselves their own Wiki and
host this there. It also seems to be part of a walled garden of suspicious
articles about the artists themselves (Scott Kildall, Nathaniel Stern, and
Brian Sherwin). It seems that they have accounts and edit these themselves.
They may, or may not, be significantly notable outside of their own circle
and may, or may not, have inflated their importance in their articles. I
think it needs looking at. DanielRigal (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

    * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related
deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
    * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related
deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related
deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 22:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

    * Comment Whether these people do simple edits on their own pages in no
way invalidates what they have said here. If something is true then it
should stay in the article regardless. Did you know this article is already
referenced at The Whole 9 http://thewhole9.com/blogs/applestooranges/ just
today. I feel that your idea that it can only reference itself is unfounded
at this point. :Artintegrated (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    * KEEP(Who changed my shouted keep?) You cannot do that once I sign it.
This is against Wiki policy.Artintegrated (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2009
(UTC) I think this is something that is imporatnt. Why cant Wikipedia be a
form of art too. I don't understand how someone who edits Wikipedia would
not want their edit or "performative utterances" to be considered art.
Artintegrated (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

        * First up, the fact that the people write their own articles is a
big problem because they lack objectivity. Secondly, you can't have a
circular chain of references. You can't reference Wikipedia from a non-RS
blog that itself references Wikipedia. By that logic, any information
replicated on two different websites and referencing eachother would be
gospel truth. Referencing does not work like that. --DanielRigal (talk)
21:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

    * Comment I'm for giving this article time to improve. It's an
interesting concept, though it needs better sourcing. --TS 21:25, 14
February 2009 (UTC)
    * Comment:"the fact that the people write their own articles is a big
problem because they lack objectivity" It seems to me that everyone writes
their own articles on Wikipedia and there is no such thing as objectivity in
Wikipedia. That is the whole point-- it is inherently subjective.Shane
Mecklenburger (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

        * Please read the article carefully and see that it can't possibly
improve to become a valid Wikipedia article. It is an article about itself.
It is intrinsically unencyclopaedic. I don't think it was necessarily
created in bad faith but it is an abuse of Wikipedia to seek to use it as an
art platform and it undermines Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia. --DanielRigal
(talk) 21:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

    * Delete. Only fractionally better than any MADEUP topic. Created very
recently. Also a totally confused concept - a collaborative art project -
fine. But trying to do it on one Wikipedia page - you must be joking mate!
We also have an avoid self-reference rule. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs)
21:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

        * This sort of artwork already has strong precedents in history -
the Surrealists' Exquisite Corpse, Debord's idea of Situationist
detournement, and although I am not part of this collective, I fully intend
to include it as part of my chapter for the upcoming book of distributed
writing commissioned by Turbulence.org, and it will be mentioned as part of
my talk on new art practices at a guest lecture at Denver University on
2/16/09, and I have already written on it on my critical blog in London.
Therefore, the reference is to the emergence of the concept, which now
exists outside Wikipedia, and is paradoxical but not solipsistic. I think
that the person suggesting the idea of letting the idea grow is
well-reasoned, and a time for review (say, 90 days) could be set for
re-evaluation.--24.14.54.88 (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)--TS

            * Comment: Please note that, transgressive though they were, the
Surrealists played "exquisite corpses" using their own notepaper. They did
not try to scrawl it the margins of a library book. This is the problem.
Nobody objects to a Wiki based artwork. The problem is that it can't be
inserted into Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not just a Wiki. It is an
encyclopedia. It is no more appropriate to add non-encyclopaedic content
here than it is to write stuff in library books. I have refrained from using
the term "vandalism" because I think this is all a big misunderstanding
rather than a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. None the less, that is
the effect it is having. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
            * Comment: I would very much beg to differ on the point of the
Surrealists. Dali would lay in traffic, Artaud organized a riot aginst
Dulac's first screening of the Clergyman and the Seashell. If the
Surrealists would have found it "appropriate" for the message, I am
absolutely sure they would have done Corpses in the library. The way I see
it, if it gets pulled, it will become by definition a case for reinsertion
as an "event" in New Media art history. However, I know the project is being
watched by a number of curators with great interest.--Patlichty (talk)
23:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

    * Delete - an interesting concept, but not suitable here: this is an
encyclopedia, not a web-host for this sort of project. Find some other Wiki
to do it on. JohnCD (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    * Delete. Out of scope as a project, completely lacking in evident
notability as a concept. Powers T 22:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

    * Addition to the nomination: OK. Now I am really confused. They have a
Wiki of their own at: wikipediaart.org, which has the same content as the
Wikipedia article we are discussing here. I am not sure how the two are
meant to relate to eachother but it may be that they are confused as to the
difference between a Wiki and Wikipedia. I am not sure which site they are
proposing to be the actual art work. If it is the Wikipedia article then all
I have said above is correct. If it is their own Wiki then the circularity
is broken and the article in not intrinsically unencyclopaedic. In that case
I would like to add the following alternative reasons to delete the article:
Lack of notability and lack of RS references. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:19, 14
February 2009 (UTC)

        * Comment: the page at wikipediaart.org is not a wiki - it's just an
advert or pointer to this one. It's clear that it's here they intend the
"art" to happen. JohnCD (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

            * Correction: Sorry. I got their link wrong. They do have a Wiki
at: http://wikipediaart.org/wiki/. That said, I think you are almost
certainly right. I just wanted to be fair to them and to everybody here by
giving the whole picture. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

    * Delete This could never be properly sourced, as it could only exist
here first before it could ever be written about in order for it to be
notable enough to be mentioned here. Yes, an interesting paradox, but that's
not our problem. We can only go by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and
it's pretty clear that this needs to be deleted. But here's an idea: the
fact that this was attempted and subsequently deleted could possibly
generate enough third-party coverage to make the initial project notable
enough to be included (at least as part of the artists' articles). But until
then, it cannot stay. It's not encyclopedic as an entirely self-referential
article. freshacconci talktalk 22:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    * Keep For whatever reason, I think this is a viable vehicle for
Wikipedia. Performative utterances actually has a nice ring to it. OneMarkus
(talk) 22:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    * Delete. This does not make any sense: it is an article about itself. I
think the article is a breaching experiment. As a side note, that website,
wikipediaart.org, is most likely infringing on the Wikimedia Foundation's
copyright on the name Wikipedia. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:40, 14 February
2009 (UTC)

        * So, if you are right, that means that they probably regard this
AfD as the real artwork? Oh joy. I think you are right about the
copyright/trademark on "Wikipedia" but I was assuming (hoping) that it was a
legitimate misunderstanding between Wiki (which anybody can use) and
Wikipedia. I really hope that this does not turn out to have been a bad
faith exercise from the outset. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2009
(UTC)

            * I had not thought of it that way, but you may be right about
this AFD being the "artwork". A breaching experiment does attempt to measure
reactions to the experiment. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 23:02, 14 February 2009
(UTC)

                * Yes, this discussion is the most interesting part of the
work by far. And it has a built-in narrative structure to it-- how will it
turn out? Kept or Deleted?Shane Mecklenburger (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2009
(UTC)

    * delete This does not fit Wikipedia. DanielRigal, I don't understand
why you flagged the Brian Sherwin bio over this unless you have a beef with
him. Did you even read the bio or the prior deletion debates? I've cited his
interviews to help improve visual art bios on wikipedia because consensus
has been that he is notable twice. Should I stop? Should we flag every
writer and art critic if we don't agree with something they write about? I
read the Sherwin article about this and it does not look like he was a part
of it aside from posting about it after one of the two contacted him. The
article clearly says that it is a project by Stern and Kildall. So why did
you flag the Sherwin bio? Artblogs (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

        * 'Comment: the flags on the authors of the Wikipedia Art article
are unwarranted - Kildall is a gradute of the Art Institute of Chicago, and
well exhibited, I am not familiar with Biran per se, and I wrote a term
paper in part about Nathaniel's work during my MFA studies on African
Computer Art in the mid 2000's. These are legitimate people, and their pages
are justified, and only justifiable criticism maybe citations or
formatting.--Patlichty (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
        * 'Comment: Well, right - "legitimate" is not the proper word.
However, all three have substantial records, and if it takes an exxternal
scholar to go over their records, then we can set that
up.User:Patlichty|Patlichty]] (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

    That has nothing to do with this AfD. I have replied on your talk page.
--DanielRigal (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

    * Delete "Wikipedia Art" fails WP:N and WP:V. So far I have heard no
reason why an exception should be made for "Wikipedia Art". Many articles on
artists, art movements, and art styles are deleted due to failure to meet
minimum requirements for WP:N and WP:V. I have not heard any reason
articulated by any of the defenders of this newly created article as to why
an exception should be made in this instance. Therefore I see no reason to
make an exception for its failure to meet basic requirements for Wikipedia
articles. In the absence of any reasons given for overriding Wikipedia basic
policy, I see no reason not to delete "Wikipedia Art". Bus stop (talk)
00:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

    * Keep The Wikipedia Art page is something that explains art, explores
art, and is art all at the same time. Deleting this page would be a
statement that the exegesis of conceptual art and/or new media art has no
place in Wikipedia, except on the tired, lifeless, and opaque conceptual art
and new media art pages. Why shouldn't a tiny corner of Wikipedia-brand
collective epistemology be preserved for an instructive, self-referential,
and ever-changing living example of what an art object can be in the 21st
Century? Should this page be judged invalid only because it refers to
itself? The Wikipedia Art page is a self-aware example of Wikipedia's
mission of collective epistemology. It enacts and exposes Wikipedia's own
strengths, weaknesses, potential, and limits as a system of understanding
and as a contemplative object of beauty. The page is also a self-aware
example of the strengths, weaknesses, potential, and limits of new media art
as a an object of contemplation. New media art has demonstrated that the
boundaries between art and every other discipline from epistemology to
microbiology have disintegrated (see interdisciplinarity) in the 21st
Century. This page shows how a Wikipedia page can go beyond simply existing
as a Wikipedia page, while retaining its basic utilitarian Wikipedia
function. Those who care most about Wikipedia's mission would probably agree
that Wikipedia already is a collaborative art form. If you feel that
Wikipedia is a beautiful thing, then at some level (whether or not you admit
it) you consider Wikipedia an art form, with its own codes and conventions.
This artwork can only exist as a Wikipedia page that refers to itself.
Therefore, deleting would not only send the message "this is not Wikipedia";
it would also be saying "this is not art." comment added by Shmeck (talk •
contribs) 00:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
          o The above is a wonderful commentary, but Wikipedia is not your
web page to wax eloquently about what you think ought to exist. Bus stop
(talk) 00:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
                + Comment: Thanks, but isn't that what everyone is doing
here? Talking about what ought to exist on Wikipedia? You haven't addressed
a single one of my points.Shane Mecklenburger (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2009
(UTC)
                      # No, I haven't addressed your points. The subject of
the discussion is whether to delete the article or not, not whether or not
you feel that Wikipedia should have an article containing the qualities that
you feel the "Wikipedia Art" article might be capable of containing.
Ostensibly the points and the subject matter of your defense of the
"Wikipedia Art" article is what would be discussed and debated in the
article itself, if it existed. That might be an interesting discussion; then
again that might not be an interesting discussion. But I don't think we have
to assume the article exists in order to discuss whether or not to delete
it. I think we can separate those two discussions. Bus stop (talk) 00:44, 15
February 2009 (UTC)
                            *
                                  o I beg to differ. My contribution was
meant to raise awareness of the larger context in which a decision to delete
or keep the article is taking place. Having read the comments above, I saw
they did not reflect an understanding of what's at stake in a decision to
delete or keep the article. Either decision would say a great deal about
both Wikipedia and whether/how it distinguishes between collaborative
knowledge and collaborative art, at a time when that boundary is quickly
evaporating (see MIT's Artist-In-Residence program). Awareness of these
matters is essential to the discussion.Shane Mecklenburger (talk) 01:45, 15
February 2009 (UTC)
                                        + I disagree. The only thing at
stake is Wikipedia's integrity as an encyclopaedia. The rest is stuff that
we simply take no view on. If something is deleted it is because it is
inappropriate to Wikipedia. It is not a comment on its wider worth. Nothing
will be lost if the article is deleted. The authors can request a copy to be
emailed to them and they can put it up again on another site. This is not
censorship. This is not against art. It is just housekeeping. --DanielRigal
(talk) 01:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
                                              # Yes, but according to whose
definition of Wikipedia's "integrity as an encyclopedia"? Yours? Forgive me,
but you don't seem receptive to the range of opinions in this discussion
arguing quite cogently for a more open definition. According to the
Wikipedia entry, an encyclopedia is "a comprehensive written compendium that
holds information."Shane Mecklenburger (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

    * Delete. Wikipedia is not a web host for collaborative art projects.
Previous discussions about sourcing are beside the point, because this is an
art project, and art projects are not allowed in article space.
Baileypalblue (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
          o Comment: What exactly distinguishes a collaborative art project
from a collaborative article?
                + I think it should be obvious that an article is an attempt
to objectively capture the facts about a subject and that art is a
subjective attempt to say something original about something. Given that
Wikipedia is for objectivity and against original research it really is an
incredibility inappropriate place to seek to make art. I see the attraction
of the Wiki engine for collaborative art, but they can (and indeed already
have) start their own Wiki for that. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:14, 15 February
2009 (UTC)
                      # With all due respect, both the hard sciences, the
humanities, and journalism have fully rejected the idea of objectivity.
There is no such thing, and Wikipedia is a perfect example of a perfectly
subjective (if collaborative) encyclopedia. Similarly, originality has been
rejected by art. There is no such thing. It's all just different forms of
appropriation. So it seems to me that Wikipedia is a perfect place to expose
the current state of affairs.Shane Mecklenburger (talk) 05:09, 15 February
2009 (UTC)
                            * Do you have a source for the notion that
originality has been rejected by art? Are there any countervailing views?
Bus stop (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
                                  o Yes: Andy Warhol, Marcel Duchamp, Roy
Lichtenstein, Michelangelo, Leonardo daVinci. It's all copying and pasting.
The only difference is that now artists are self-aware about it.Shane
Mecklenburger (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
                                  o I don't think it is productive to
discuss this. I now regret giving it an opening as it isn't relevant here.
(This is what I get for trying to be helpful.) Some people reject the
concept of encyclopaedic knowledge. That is their choice but I don't see any
reason for a person of that view to hang out on an encyclopaedia. This sort
of stuff gets discussed interminably by philosophers. We are not going to
get anywhere with it here. Lets let it drop. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:44, 15
February 2009 (UTC)

    * Recap: I think we have an unusual situation here in two ways. First up
there are a lot of people here who do not normally "do" AfDs. Secondly,
there is a real, and I believe honest, failure of those who want to keep the
article to understand the fundamental nature of the problem, or of Wikipedia
itself. I don't want to be patronising but lets quickly recap Wikipedia 101:
The five pillars of Wikipedia explains what Wikipedia is, isn't and also how
it is run. Almost everything of importance is linked from there but I would
specifically like to mention notability, verifiability, reliable sources, no
original research and, last but not least, do not disrupt Wikipedia to
illustrate a point. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
          o Comment: The Wikipedia Art page satisfies every one of those
requirements. I also don't wish to be patronizing, but I believe there is a
real, honest failure of those who want to delete the article to understand
the fundamental nature of the problem-- which is how narrowly you choose to
define knowledge, art, verifiability, original research, and
disruption.Shane Mecklenburger (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
                + You are discussing what would be the content of the
article if it existed. This discussion concerns itself with whether or not
such an article should exist. There is a distinction, in my opinion. Bus
stop (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
                      # I'm in favor of the idea and rationale of Wikipedia
Art. I vote YES for the continuation of the project. -mjm —Preceding
unsigned comment added by Mkewi53207 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 15 February
2009 (UTC)

    * Keep: There are several questions here - One is the letter of the law,
which is not always enforced here.

First, notability - as a media studies and New Media Art professor &
curator, I find this missive "Highly" notable, for obvious reasons. This is
a great project, either way it's resolved. It has also been picked up for
discussion in at least one scholarly publication in this first day.
Secondly, verifiability - there external resources on the issue, and it is
alrady in discussion in the greater community. I think the issue might be
whether the site or the entry is the art, which has not been resolved.
Reliable Sources: there are two blogs, an installation, and a developing
discussion on a 10,000 person listserv (Rhizome). I'm sure that this will be
undeniably resolved to Wikipedia standards soon.
No Original Research: This might be the weakest leg in that much of it was
written by the progenitors, but if needed, objective scholars can be asked
to render their thoughts as well.
Don't Garfinkel the WIKI (DGtW); That's a bit gray, again on terms as to
whether the site or the entry is the "art". In my opinion, the decision will
likely be much clearer after a period of time (as stated before, 90 days,
and probably minimum of 30).
--Patlichty (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

    *
          o I am disappointed to read this after my heartfelt plea on your
talk page. Notability is not something that you can simply declare because
you are a prof. We ask for reliable sources and you give us blogs. We
complain of original research and you seek so remedy it by soliciting yet
more original research. I would have expected better. --DanielRigal (talk)
01:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

    * Proposal: Although there are a lot of people who want this article
kept I believe that everybody above who has evaluated the matter within the
scope of the actual policies has decided to delete it. It is also clear that
the article is disruptive and that the deletion discussion has played out
and is becoming repetitive and branching off into general discussion. I
propose that we close this as delete. Any admins with me on this?
--DanielRigal (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

    * Keep - Let's not make it wikipedia editors jobs to determine what is
art. The 3 authors are established artists and they have said it is art -
that's really the end of the story. However, after that it is up to the rest
of us to determine if it is good and/or worthwhile art. For that, let's use
the 5 pillars of wikipedia. Notability - has been established. It's been
written about in several places, there is a RL lecture discussing it, a
curator has vouched for it. Compared with many other wikipedia articles
which have no question of notability (for example, minor fictional
characters from television shows, decade old chipsets, and manufacturers of
Dungeons and Dragons miniature figurines) I'd say this met the established
standard easily. Verifiability - the page exists and we've all seen it. No
one has questioned whether or not it is being discussed on other sites or at
academic lectures. Reliable sources - The authors created the page. The
content of the page is the work of art itself, and it describes itself.
Again, this doesn't appear to be an issue because Verifiablity isn't in
question. No original research - none is necessary. We know all we need to
know. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point - this may be the
closest call. While I understand why this is an issue, I don't think the
artists are disrupting wikipedia to create a point. Their purpose is to
create an artwork. The point it makes is secondary and the disruption is a
side effect. Again, there's plenty of room on wikipedia for this. It's of
interest. The more you make a stink about it, the stronger the case becomes.
Let it go. DanielRigal - I think you feel too strongly about this and should
cool off. With all due respect, Daniel, you may be projecting here. Please
take your own advice. There is a very rational and relevant discussion
happening here, and you appear to be trying to fast-track it into a
deletion, perhaps out of unwillingness to consider differing points of view.
Again, no offense, but you have been quite dismissive of the excellent
points being raised here.Shane Mecklenburger (talk) 02:20, 15 February 2009
(UTC)

    * Proposal - freeze edits for 1 week. --Dronthego (talk) 02:07, 15
February 2009 (UTC)
          o I think it is in violation of the spirit of WP:SOAPBOX. So far,
all we've heard is point of view pushing, in support of this article. That
is acceptable in a work of art (maybe); it is far less acceptable in a
Wikipedia article, ideally. Bus stop (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
                + Are you going to explain why you don't think edits should
be frozen and why there's shouldn't be a cool off period for this article?
Bus stop What harm comes from waiting 1 week? --Dronthego (talk) 02:43, 15
February 2009 (UTC)
                      # Dronthego -- I said nothing about whether or not
edits should be frozen. The article's existence is dependent upon the
article's existence. That is the premise upon which the initiating editors
created this article. Many articles are deleted, in the visual arts, for
failing to meet basic Wikipedia requirements. Do you think all articles in
the visual arts that have been deleted in, say, the past 90 days should be
reinstated, or just this article? Bus stop (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2009
(UTC)
                            * We generally don't "freeze" a deletion
discussion just cause it gets heated. For all the steamed-up people here
there are many more cool-headed Wikipedians who can carry on constructive
discussion. Anyone who feels like it may continue bickering. The outcome
will still be determined fairly. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:48, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
                                  o Fair enough, but I didn't mean this
discussion page, I mean the article. --Dronthego (talk) 02:51, 15 February
2009 (UTC)
                                        + You want to freeze the article
because this discussion has gotten heated? I don't see what that would
accomplish. Even if that article were frozen, this discussion would still
close at the same time, generally 5 days after it started. Equazcion •✗/C •
03:04, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)

    * Speedy Delete - G1, G2, G3, or G11 - Take your pick. How about simply
not notable, vandalism, hoax, etc? Whether it can be considered art or not
is irrelevant. Wikipedia ain't your canvas. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:22, 15 Feb
2009 (UTC)
          o But you saying Jimmy Wales has a hidden profile on that Facebook
Wikipedia Art fan page undermines your neutrality and this in fact could
sway someone from voting to keep rather than delete this page. Its the
swaying part not just misstating facts that bothers me. Artintegrated (talk)
04:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
                + I've responded to this allegation extensively below.
Equazcion •✗/C • 05:12, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
    * Keep - actually Wikipedia is our canvas; as it states in its byline,
"anyone can edit"; and it has been promoted on this premise - that it is the
collective work of innumerable individuals. This is a valuable article if
just because of the interesting discussion on this page, but also because it
is interrogating the nature of user-generated content, and the ability of
artists to transform even the most pedestrian platform into something that
comments and provokes. Frock (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
          o Yes, anyone can edit. No guarantee that your edit will stick,
though. All edits can also be reversed and deleted. Goes both ways, you see.
So if you want to say Wikipedia is your temporary canvas, until someone
notices what you did, then sure, it's your canvas. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:12,
15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
          o comment Has an art project like his happened on Wikipedia
before? Did Stern and Kidall break new ground or were they inspired by past
"projects"? Artblogs (talk) 02:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
                + If it has happened before, it's also been deleted before,
rather quickly. Generally articles like this are speedy-deleted without the
need for discussion, but in this case someone nominated it for discussion
instead, so here we are. It'll still get deleted in the end, as it violates
pretty much every rule we have here. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:30, 15 Feb 2009
(UTC)

    * Delete of course. Doesn't even pass the "amusing hoax" test. -
DavidWBrooks 02:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

    * Comment One of the reasons I feel this discussion is viable is that it
is one of those either/or situations. I dont see how an administrator can
call for the AfD to be closed and the page deleted within the first couple
hours of its creation. This is way too soon in the process for this to
happen unless the person who put it up for deletion is afraid that those of
us who support the article will ultimately see the page remain.
    * On Facebook there is a fan page for this article "Wikipedia Art" and
the founder himself Jimmy Wales just joined this Facebook page. Will this
added bit of information help keep this article? This is what I question
here. This should in no way be EGO driven. It is what it is. Artintegrated
(talk) 02:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
          o And just how many "Jimmy Wales'" are there on Facebook? Besides
which, no, that wouldn't have any effect on the decision here. Equazcion
•✗/C • 02:39, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
                + I searched on facebook and found just one Jimmy Wales.
--Dronthego (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
                      # Yeah, notice that the "Jimmy Wales" who joined that
group has his profile hidden. Do a search and you'll find the one without
the hidden profile, showing nine hundred something fans. Equazcion •✗/C •
02:59, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
                            *
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=75066111912#/s.php?k=100000004&id=75066111912&gr=2&a=7&sid=aba34a0c6e6c8af42a59b0872ccf1c5f&n=-1&o=4&s=10&hash=3684301cd6bdb416a7799d9c83d2136a&sf=pThis
Jimmy Wales on Facebook fan page for Wikipedia Art is the founder of
Wikipedia. He is not hidden here Facebook only puts up random pics of people
who join a page you can search all to see
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=75066111912#/group.php?gid=75066111912Misinformation
on a AfD page should not be tolerated. Artintegrated (talk)
03:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
                                  o Jimmy Wales on Facebook. Notice the
difference from the group member list. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:32, 15 Feb 2009
(UTC)
                                        + Equazcion you changed my KEEP to
Keep after I signed it.Artintegrated (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
                                              # Yes I did, I was fixing
formatting issues and trying to gussy up the page. You're welcome to change
it back, but do keep in mind that shouting doesn't help. Equazcion •✗/C •
04:33, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
    * Comment This "article" seems designed to violate as many of our basic
policies as possible. Linking every word? Signatures in article space?
Ridiculous amounts of self-referencing? An article that is about nothing but
itself? It is absurd. That's art for you; some people will always find it
absurd. But Wikipedia is not a repository or venue for art experiments. We
eliminate graffiti when we find it, and that's all this is. Powers T 02:51,
15 February 2009 (UTC)
          o Where exactly do you draw the line between graffiti and a
Wikipedia entry? How is Wikipedia not a publicly moderated graffiti forum
with conventions and guidelines for graffiti?Shane Mecklenburger (talk)
05:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
    * Comment/Keep As I've seen the new "Context" section put forth, and not
by any of the artists, I think the article is MUCH more solid, is more
grounded in external art historical references, and all around more grounded
as an "article" per se. There the piece was truly solipsistic in the
beginning, and probably fated for swift deletion, I think that comments by
people like Frock, the new edits, and the development of the article over
such a short amount of time shows its potential. In addition, I move that
before deletion, we really should get someone in who's edited the New
Media/Tech Art pages. If they're here, please chime in, and state you've
been editing there.--Patlichty (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
          o None of the new material added to the article is germane to this
discussion, because none of it addresses the two reasons for deletion: none
of it demonstrates reliable source coverage of this art project, and none of
it changes the fact that art projects are not allowed in article space.
Baileypalblue (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

    * Userfy the first edit to User:Artintegrated/Wikipedia Art then delete
the rest. If sufficient reliable sources exist and it meets notability
requirements, allow creation of a new page under the same name about the
February 14, 2009 art experiment. Blogs and mailing lists are generally
insufficient to establish notability, but if an art journal, newspaper, or a
WP:RS art magazine writes about this, then an article about this experiment
is acceptable. Inform user he has a fixed time limit to save his work then
delete it as inappropriate use of user space. I recommend a week.
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
          o Interesting thought. Perhaps that is the whole point of this
page, to provoke a such a discussion of this article, on- and off-Wiki, that
the controversy itself becomes notable. Authors, are you reading this? Is
that your purpose? •••Life of Riley (T–C) 03:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
                + Just my reading of things, it looks like the purpose is to
provoke a reaction of some type so a student or researcher can have
something to report. Whether the resulting controversy or the academic
results will rise to the level of notability or not remains to be seen. See
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, or one week as the
case may be. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:45, 15 February 2009
(UTC)
          o That's a very fair-minded proposal, but I don't think it's a
good idea. It would mean going through another deletion discussion starting
a week from now, fanning the flames of controversy just after they've died
down. As suggested earlier in this discussion, if reliable source coverage
develops to justify an article on this subject, an administrator can then
offer the page creator access to the deleted versions of the article for
recreation of an encyclopedic article. Baileypalblue (talk) 04:06, 15
February 2009 (UTC)
    * Based on this theory, every page on WIkipedia is art. In terms of an
article, I think deletion is in order here, however this might be an
interesting concept to explore in project space, that's usually where we do
our navel-gazing. FWIW: This isn't the first time someone has made art out
of Wikipedia, at one point some fellow thought our deletion logs could be
used for art. He created a website & tool to gather the log info for his
project. This project may still be active somewhere, although I suspect
we've taken the joy out of it now that most of our deletions contain policy
related summaries rather than the first sentence or two from the article.
--Versageek 03:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
    * Move to project space or if not, user space, and then if the sources
are specific and substantial enough, consider a shorter article about this
in mainspace. .DGG (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
          o Could you elaborate on the rationale of moving to project space?
I'm under the impression that project space is for projects that directly
involve improving the encyclopedia or its accessibility. What does this do
in that capacity? Equazcion •✗/C • 03:53, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)

    * Delete - this is not what Wikipedia is for (see WP:NOT). As an
article, it fails the notability test. If anyone wants to write a
well-sourced article about internet art as applied to wikis, be my guest,
but this isn't it. Robofish (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
    * Comment: I don't think it's a good idea to move this project to user
space or any other space. If this art project is, as has been suggested, a
breaching experiment, if it is, as has been suggested, an attempt to
generate controversy to justify the experiment's own existence, then I don't
see how the encyclopedia will benefit from continuing to maintain it. I
retain my original opinion that this project is an attempt to use the
resources of Wikipedia for purposes separate from the intended purpose of
building an encyclopedia, and if that's the case, then Wikipedia should not
maintain it anywhere. Baileypalblue (talk) 04:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
          o I added this article today at around 3:15. I felt that it would
absolutely pass the test and remain here on Wikipedia. Already though
several of the "Delete people" have gone and changed edits on Kildall's page
here and one said that Jimmy Wales has his profile hidden on a Facebook site
and I showed the link to make sure people knew this was an incorrect
statement and even Equazcion said it was a mistake on his discussion page
but he didn't include that on here bringing into question the neutrality
that is supposed to be the best of Wikipedia. I also know about some
overreaching into past edits that seem very underhanded. Lets be bigger than
that on here. Integrity is Wikipedia's best policy. Andy Warhol, himself
said art is anything you can get away with. That said, lets do the right
thing here. Artintegrated (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
                + Oh no no no sir, I did not say that at all. I said that
the person who claims to be Jimmy Wales that you've got in your group is in
fact not the real Jimmy Wales. You continue to misunderstand me. I gave you
this link to the actual Jimmy wales page. This is not the same member you
have in your facebook group.Equazcion •✗/C • 04:50, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
                      # My five mutual friends of his say it is him. Why
should they tell me something that is an untruth. Most dont even know about
this Wikipedia Art page or the AfD here or I should just take your word
without a basis to stand on? Artintegrated (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2009
(UTC)
                            * Your friends told you so? That's your
argument? Look: No one's asking you to take my word for it. Since Jimmy
Wales on a Facebook group for fans of the page we're considering for
deletion has no bearing whatsoever on said deletion, there's no way I could
possibly care less. I told you as much on my talk page but you asked me to
continue anyway, and I did. I'm sorry if you're unsatisfied with the
outcome. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:56, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
                                  o If you could care less why are you even
on here????Artintegrated (talk) 04:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
                                        + I care about the deletion
discussion. I don't care about your facebook argument. Equazcion •✗/C •
05:00, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
                                              # Then lets only state facts
on this AfD since you say you do care about it. Artintegrated (talk) 05:12,
15 February 2009 (UTC)
                                                    * This is a matter of
opinion, not fact. I've stated my opinion, and you've stated yours.
Equazcion •✗/C • 05:16, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)
                + Do you mean Andy Warhol, the Wikipedian? Bus stop (talk)
04:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
                      # I meant Andy Warhol, the contrarian. Artintegrated
(talk) 04:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
                            * I think you mean Andy Warhol the indisputably
canonized artist.. Shane Mecklenburger (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

    * Delete WP:OR, WP:SOAPBOX, not notable, no reliable sources except one
blog, trying to use wikipedia for something other than writing an
encyclopedia.... why are we even having this discussion? --Enric Naval
(talk) 05:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
          o Because the nominator accidentally chose AfD instead of CSD, a
decision for which he is very remorseful. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:30, 15 Feb
2009 (UTC)
                + lol. He has certainly learned his lesson. Oh, well, I
don't think that there is much problem with leaving this open until the time
limit. Just don't pay them much attention. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:42, 15
February 2009 (UTC)
                + Ah, Equazcion, that's the best comment yet in this
discussion! I got a huge laugh out of that one! Daniel, are you ruing the
day you made this nomination? •••Life of Riley (T–C) 06:10, 15 February 2009
(UTC)

    * Delete: If the article IS the artwork, then it is a primary source and
furthermore pretty much cannot have an NPOV by definition. Wikipedia is a
tertiary source, and we must maintain NPOV. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:07, 15
February 2009 (UTC)
          o Comment: And just in case, salt too. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:08,
15 February 2009 (UTC)
    * Delete per WP:OR, WP:NEO, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NFT, WP:V, WP:N and quite a
few others. The self-referential citations alone point to how non-notable
this concept is. Simply put, if this is a concept for collaboration people
wish to try, put it in the Wikipedia namespace. It flat out does not belong
in article space. Resolute 06:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
    * Delete, the only verifiability or notability here is self-referential,
and that's the only way this article can and will be. This definitely
shouldn't be namespace moved either, it belongs in a different Wiki
altogether; this one is a collaborative encyclopedia, not a collaborative
art project. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
    * Comment I'd be very against a namespace change as well. Wikipedia
space is for collaborations that aim to improve the encyclopedia, not for
just any collaboration a group of people want to try. Equazcion •✗/C •
06:22, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)

        * Touche. I doubt it would survive an MfD either. Resolute 06:27, 15
February 2009 (UTC)

    * Delete as non-notable, self-referential mess. Tried by others, and
deleted. Kill kill kill. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 06:24, 15 February 2009
(UTC)
    * Delete. As the contributor of ten percent of Wikipedia's featured
pictures and twenty percent of its featured sounds, assuring fellow editors
that this can be safely deleted. Most of the citations fail WP:RS and the
rest fail WP:NOR. 'Wikipedia Art' as such does not exist in any way that
merits an article. And serious efforts toward building a collaborative media
restoration undertaking would only be undermined by the existence of such a
page as this. DurovaCharge! 06:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Speedily deleted. No indication that the content may meet our criteria for
inclusion. — Werdna • talk 06:32, 15 February 2009 (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.

#  This page was last modified on 15 February 2009, at 14:05.
# All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation
License. (See Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia(R) is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a
U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.







#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org