Home • Search • Translate
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 merge to Red Bull. Socks/meats notwithstanding, I'm rounding to merge, given consensus is still against outright retention. Consensus at the destination article is obviously free to determine how much, if any, of this article is to be incorporated slakr\  talk / 04:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Red Bull House of Art

Red Bull House of Art (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Gallery of low notability. Corruption Watchchihuahua ( talk) 23:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC) reply

This deletion discussion is possibly an extension of harassment I've received lately To all users: please check my talk page. I'm leaving this note on your wiki page because the calls for deletion also involve a few (possible) wiki users who have recently harassed me and my name on the Red Bull wiki page itself. When I reported it, several users apologized on my page, including Corruption. The original person who harrassed me was a person named "Ringcluder" who is not actually registered here. I now believe Corruption might be the original troll who bothered me in the first place. I'm not sure but I think it's worth considering. I also think this might be someone I know in real life, but am not sure yet. Thank you for being aware of this. Kgpaints ( talk) 01:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Here's a hypothetical scenario: Brach Goodman gets angry about this page, corrects the Cycle 9 information and leaves a message on Ringcluder's talk page threatening to report him to the vandal patrol. Wouldn't Brach Goodman have become the target of Ringcluder's harassment instead of you? Just skimming that page I can list plenty of other targets besides you. Truth to the Fourth Power ( talk) 04:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC) reply
As far as I know, no one's gotten threats aside from me. I'm the only artist where it's gotten to this level. Even if there are other artists being harassed, it's better to bring this to light than to let this whole nomination for deletion look completely innocent. I believe this is someone getting angry that I've hit back, and they're flouncing off. "If I can't have my way, then no one will" sort of thing. Kgpaints ( talk) 16:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Because you're the only one to bite the bait so hard. Paula Schubatis is not biting. Brian Lacey is not biting. That's just two. Maybe they don't know about this page. Or maybe they do know but they understand that the best thing for them, the best thing for you, the best thing for the others is for this page to be deleted. At this point in time, you and the others need the narrative to only exist in places where you can exercise better control over it. Truth to the Fourth Power ( talk) 20:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Sounds an awful lot like victim blaming. I'll just disregard that. Also, because you're so adamant for the page's deletion and keen to blame me for what's happening, I think you might be another alt. Kgpaints ( talk) 19:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Dial down the melodrama already. This isn't just about you, but you stand to benefit from this page being deleted. Truth to the Fourth Power ( talk) 01:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Dial it down yourself. This is an actual problem that's already had consequences away from this page. Being dismissive of that doesn't help anything. You're fine to continue to be rude if you like, but you're only making yourself look foolish. Kgpaints ( talk) 06:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Although I probably don't have a voice in this because I'm one of the artists, it's worth mentioning that the Red Bull House of Art program has been in Brazil and in Lisbon. It's worth at least editing the article to reflect how many cities it's been in to show the scale of it. You're going to end up putting it back on Wiki because from what I've heard, Red Bull is moving this gallery to different cities after Detroit. Kgpaints ( talk) 00:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Would that be such a bad thing, deleting this article and putting it back in years later? You don't see real encyclopedias jumping ahead of subjects like this. Look up George W. Bush in a 2001 Encyclopedia Britannica some time. Truth to the Fourth Power ( talk) 04:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – Gets 101 hits on Google News, including some (like this one) that profile the program itself as well as covering the shows. Currently the article is a list article, and I don't know if we have to list every artist. But the Detroit art scene is well known, so I'd say it has potential ( WP:HASPOT). –  Margin1522 ( talk) 00:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Selective merge – Changing my !vote as this seems to be nearing a consensus, and I'm OK with that. That is, omit the lists of artists. With multiple shows per year this list would grow rapidly and it would have to be maintained. There is also the issue of whether the shows themselves are notable enough to need detailed listings. I don't think that's required. –  Margin1522 ( talk) 19:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply

**Comment - I did a Google News search. I got a lot of irrelevant results. Truth to the Fourth Power ( talk) 16:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC) reply

      • Comment Well, yes, of course. Some of them are primarily about other topics. But what we need here are policy reasons. For notability we need coverage from multiple independent sources, which these are. And for verifiability they have to be reliable sources. It seems to me that we have enough. There are many articles about the arts scene in Detroit, e.g. this one from the New York Times. The large number of hits in Google News is due partly to their decision to include freelance reports from Examiner.com. But what that shows is that if you are an aspiring critic or reporter who wants to cover the arts scene in Detroit, then you cover shows at this gallery. Looks to me like one of the more notable arts spaces in the city. –  Margin1522 ( talk) 19:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC) reply
        • Comment Am I reading you wrong or do you hesitate to accept Examiner.com as a valid news source? What if we ignore those "freelance reports"? What are we left with? Three articles in newspapers, at least two of which were written only because staffers from those papers were selected as resident artists. I don't think this kind of quid pro quo should count like "independent sources" to me. Truth to the Fourth Power ( talk) 04:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC) reply
          • Comment – OK, here are a few more sources from the first page of Google results. One from the local CBS TV station [1], one from an arts foundation [2], and one from the local public radio station [3]. Plus the many newspaper stories and freelance reviews. I have no opinion on whether the Detroit Free Press (Detroit's largest newspaper) had ulterior motives that make them an unreliable source, because there's no way to tell. All I can say is that in my opinion the breadth and depth of coverage seems to be more than enough for notability. –  Margin1522 ( talk) 06:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC) reply

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth to the Fourth Power ( talk • contribs) 18:04, 17 January 2015
Comment Thanks, but when was "latest" and where are those quotes from? Anyway, the Metro Times has run 28 stories on this space, dating back to 2013. I mean, I get it. The no !votes are claiming WP:COI. But there are 100 stories – surely not all of them are COI? Nor did the nom cite any reason for non-notable ( WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE). I think we need more than that. –  Margin1522 ( talk) 22:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC) reply
They're from external links currently linked from the article, the ones with the correct author's name and publication titles. Truth to the Fourth Power ( talk) 03:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC) reply


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Only reason the Detroit Free Press did an article on Cycle 8 was because one of the Free Press editors was selected as one of the artists. If the Detroit News ever does an article on this gallery, you'll know the reason why when you look at the roster of artists. Incarnatus ( talk) 22:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I was paid $120 cash by a lady with green hair to write this article. She didn't give me her name but said she's a friend of Gregory Kohs. Flutedude ( talk) 15:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Every single source is either unreliable, blacklisted (Examiner.com), a primary source (Metro Times being one example), or local to Detroit or San Diego, as far as I can see. Often a mixture of the three. And a Google search does not change that much. So, we're left with a list of non-notable people, of dubious reliability, about some kind of project run by a non-notable person in a local area that just happens to be sponsored by Red Bull. And Red Bull's sponsorship means nothing; they sponsor pretty much everything under the sun. So, yeah. Doesn't matter how many Google News searches come up, as per WP:GHITS. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment - Good points, Luke. Except there isn't even a San Diego source. That's an Anchorman (with Will Ferrell and Christina Applegate) joke that's flying over everyone's heads. The San Diego Examiner is just a stand-in for the blacklisted Examiner.com. Truth to the Fourth Power ( talk) 13:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Fair enough. I will state that the San Diego source being a stand-in for Examiner.com was an idea that did occur to me (San Diego, after all, is nowhere near Detroit; even this lowly Brit knows that!), but I wasn't aware of that reference, and I decided to treat the article as if all of the references were accurate initially; since none would actually satisfy notability requirements, I didn't go into them in much more depth. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • It could be the case that Karianne Hollowell is from San Diego. In that scenario, maybe the classy people of that city would be interested in reading about their hometown girl doing good in Detroit. But your point about local sources would still be valid. Truth to the Fourth Power ( talk) 04:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep (struck, see below) – Meets WP:GNG. Source examples include:
– NORTH AMERICA 1000 19:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Couple of comments; that's not CBS News, that's CBS Detroit, and it also looks like routine coverage. Michigan Live source is basically just a YouTube link to a commercial and some description of that video; also looks like an advert for the show anyway. WXYZ Detroit looks to be another fairly local source, and isn't exactly in-depth at all. WDET News source looks routine, local, and appears to be a University radio station, so is it even reliable? I'm inclined to agree that the Michigan Chronicle source is fine; but each and every other one looks either local, routine/an advert, unreliable, or a mixture of those things. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Selective merge to Red Bull. Struck my initial !vote above. Upon further consideration, a merge is fine, in my opinion. NORTH AMERICA 1000 10:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. It's my fault for setting the tone for such a heavy emphasis on notability and reliability of sources. That's not what I find the most troublesome about this article. I am troubled by how it was used as a platform for vanity and pranks, simultaneously, it seems. Even today, unsuspecting Wikipedia editors are falling in the traps set for them last year.
Now, "Veronica Corningstone" tells us that this article is "a corrupted copy of a LocalWiki Detroit article." Whether you like Examiner.com as a source or not is irrelevant, you can easily compare the initial version of the Wikipedia article to the initial version of the LocalWiki Detroit article. And then the question has to become whether this sort of wholesale copying is acceptable or not.
If you decide to keep this Wikipedia article, you should lock it down to prevent further pranks and flights of vanity. You should knock it down to just a lead paragraph and a list of irreproachable sources, and you should fully protect it so that only admins can edit it for as long as the Red Bull program is active. Corruption Watchchihuahua ( talk) 21:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply
No, those are valid arguments and I think it's fine to make them. About the LocalWiki, I assume it is this. But that page has a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, so in principle it's OK to copy it. You're right, though, if the article survives a {{ CC-notice}} tag should be added to acknowledge the source. –  Margin1522 ( talk) 03:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Yup, that's the one. I clicked on a link to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ which says "you are free to ... copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format" but also that "you must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use."
Also, I am concerned about the free or nearly free publicity Red Bull has been getting here. If you believe Flutedude's claim of having been paid $120, you should still think it's a very good deal for the energy drink giant. Corruption Watchchihuahua ( talk) 22:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply
If this was run-off voting, I'd say deletion first. And selective merge second. Truth to the Fourth Power ( talk) 02:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply
I concur. Deletion is the best option. A judicious, highly selective merge is the second best option. Corruption Watchchihuahua ( talk) 18:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Selective merge and redirect to Red Bull. There has been a smattering of coverage, but not really enough to where I'd say that this merits its own individual article at this point in time. I'll try to re-write the article to flow a little better and then cut/paste it into the Red Bull article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Yep, and justifiably so. I don't think this AfD should be closed, however, given that there has been plenty of input from legitimate editors; and for what it is worth, if someone needs a legitimate nominator to consider this AfD valid, then they may consider myself to be that nominator. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:27, 24 January 2015 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Red_Bull_House_of_Art&oldid=1136469531"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE