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.
Are you serious? 'Random local sources' and 'no independent coverage'?
This article has a reference to a full thirty minute long interview from graffradio, the largest street-art interview source in history. It contains an image from a flickr group dedicated to photos of this mans artwork that has existed for almost 12 years with no goal other than so share free images of his name. It contains a reference to Atlas Obscura, the largest independent American geographic encyclopedia. A reference to Year Round Metal Enjoyment, a classified and referenced documentary released at various film festivals in 2015. To Google Maps's official landmark designation for heaven's sake. Any editor can plainly see that this is worthy of a genuine article. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
00aa0 (
talk •
contribs)
21:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
PlotHelpful can you please tell me which aspect this article does not comply with? If you read the reference you'll find this is a prolific artist that has influenced many people, has become a cult figure and is the creator of a well known geographic monument outside of their artistic circle. What exactly do they NOT have to be granted a Wikipedia article?
00aa0 (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added
22:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Click on the blue links we've cited, they'll take you to Wikipedia's policies on notability and reliable, verifiable sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and "notable" here does not mean famous.
Aurornisxui (
talk)
22:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
I don't know whether you've misunderstood the link, but that 'google search' is actually not a search. It's a link to the google maps reviews of the site of the monument that contains 16 different reviews of the art. This was the reference I used to show that this artist has made a prolific art piece and if you search you'll find this is actually the highest-rated art piece on Google Maps in the whole county. With respect, I do not think your criticism is at all valid.
00aa0 (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added
22:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
I think you misunderstand what Wikipedia is for,
00aa0. You also have written a lot of detailed information for someone, per your article "not much is known about." As far as your sources, they are pretty much all useless. Here's a detailed analysis:
a blog/podcast - not even remotely notable as a source, nor is it an independent reliable source.
Do you understand the culture of said article's interest? Do you want an autobiography from him or something? Do yo you not frequent the circles of the article you're banhammering? Feel free to go through the Wikipedia pages of street artists and look through their sources, you will find they mostly consist of magazines from varying names that frequently are not available online. This page is entirely inline with other artists pages. Issues like this are what arise when users try and gatekeep topics they have no interest in. I don't think one fully realises the gravity of denying ICHABOD a wikipedia article. Do a search for him, a proper one, and you'll quickly realise his impact on bombing
graffiti is far beyond what some everyman wikipedia-editor judges topics to be. All the published interviews you've labelled as simply 'a blog' and 'not reliable' just shows how far out of touch you are with the topic in hand. You literally called the largest graffiti magazine in the world 'not reliable'.
00aa0 (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added
22:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete I speedied this first time round. I'm afraid that
00aa0 is so intent on creating a fanpage for this artist that's he appears unwilling to read the advice he's been given, let alone attempt to follow it. I have no idea if Ichabod is notable enough for an article, but with the mainly junk sources we are given here, there's nothing to convince me he is.
Jimfbleak -
talk to me?07:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete All of these sources are garbage. I don't know why the G11 was removed. I haven't found better sources, and if someone were actually able to find sources showing that the subject was notable, the article would have to be entirely rewritten anyway.
Natureium (
talk)
18:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
Are you serious? 'Random local sources' and 'no independent coverage'?
This article has a reference to a full thirty minute long interview from graffradio, the largest street-art interview source in history. It contains an image from a flickr group dedicated to photos of this mans artwork that has existed for almost 12 years with no goal other than so share free images of his name. It contains a reference to Atlas Obscura, the largest independent American geographic encyclopedia. A reference to Year Round Metal Enjoyment, a classified and referenced documentary released at various film festivals in 2015. To Google Maps's official landmark designation for heaven's sake. Any editor can plainly see that this is worthy of a genuine article. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
00aa0 (
talk •
contribs)
21:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
PlotHelpful can you please tell me which aspect this article does not comply with? If you read the reference you'll find this is a prolific artist that has influenced many people, has become a cult figure and is the creator of a well known geographic monument outside of their artistic circle. What exactly do they NOT have to be granted a Wikipedia article?
00aa0 (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added
22:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Click on the blue links we've cited, they'll take you to Wikipedia's policies on notability and reliable, verifiable sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and "notable" here does not mean famous.
Aurornisxui (
talk)
22:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
I don't know whether you've misunderstood the link, but that 'google search' is actually not a search. It's a link to the google maps reviews of the site of the monument that contains 16 different reviews of the art. This was the reference I used to show that this artist has made a prolific art piece and if you search you'll find this is actually the highest-rated art piece on Google Maps in the whole county. With respect, I do not think your criticism is at all valid.
00aa0 (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added
22:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
I think you misunderstand what Wikipedia is for,
00aa0. You also have written a lot of detailed information for someone, per your article "not much is known about." As far as your sources, they are pretty much all useless. Here's a detailed analysis:
a blog/podcast - not even remotely notable as a source, nor is it an independent reliable source.
Do you understand the culture of said article's interest? Do you want an autobiography from him or something? Do yo you not frequent the circles of the article you're banhammering? Feel free to go through the Wikipedia pages of street artists and look through their sources, you will find they mostly consist of magazines from varying names that frequently are not available online. This page is entirely inline with other artists pages. Issues like this are what arise when users try and gatekeep topics they have no interest in. I don't think one fully realises the gravity of denying ICHABOD a wikipedia article. Do a search for him, a proper one, and you'll quickly realise his impact on bombing
graffiti is far beyond what some everyman wikipedia-editor judges topics to be. All the published interviews you've labelled as simply 'a blog' and 'not reliable' just shows how far out of touch you are with the topic in hand. You literally called the largest graffiti magazine in the world 'not reliable'.
00aa0 (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added
22:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete I speedied this first time round. I'm afraid that
00aa0 is so intent on creating a fanpage for this artist that's he appears unwilling to read the advice he's been given, let alone attempt to follow it. I have no idea if Ichabod is notable enough for an article, but with the mainly junk sources we are given here, there's nothing to convince me he is.
Jimfbleak -
talk to me?07:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete All of these sources are garbage. I don't know why the G11 was removed. I haven't found better sources, and if someone were actually able to find sources showing that the subject was notable, the article would have to be entirely rewritten anyway.
Natureium (
talk)
18:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
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.