|
Ron Rocco (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) (
restore |
cache |
AfD) (
AfD2)
Additional Resources not considered
http://www.guggenheim.org/finding_aids/display.php?/A0035
786460 344 The Guggenheim Museum to Present the Performance of Artist Ron Rocco 7/22/1983
leoalmanac.org/journal/vol_4/lea_v4_n06.txt
Ron Rocco presents a web version of his work "The Horizon is Nothing More ..... Berlin, Germany: "The Berlin Project" Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, N.Y., ...
Virtual Disturbance
Taylor, Diana, 1950-
TDR: The Drama Review, Volume 47, Number 2 (T 178), Summer 2003, pp. 140-141 (Article)
Partial Access PDF Version (174k)
...Ricardo Dominguez and Ron Rocco
http://www.artnetweb.com/port/grabs/...
Subject Headings:
* New York University -- Employees -- Political activity.
* Cyberterrorism -- New York (State) -- New York.
* Cavallo, Domingo, 1946-
* Internet -- Political aspects.
Incumbent upon Recombinant Hope: EDT's Strike a Site, Strike a Pose
Carroll, Amy.
TDR: The Drama Review, Volume 47, Number 2 (T 178), Summer 2003, pp. 145-150 (Article)
Partial Access PDF Version (58k)
...by Dominguez and artist Ron Rocco (October 1996–March 1997), a...
Subject Headings:
* Electronic Disturbance Theater.
* Dominguez, Ricardo.
* Internet -- Political aspects.
* Cyberterrorism.
Digital Zapatistas
Lane, Jill, 1967-
TDR: The Drama Review, Volume 47, Number 2 (T 178), Summer 2003, pp. 129-144 (Article)
Partial Access PDF Version (177k)
...Ricardo Dominguez and Ron Rocco
http://www.artnetweb.com/port/grabs/...
Subject Headings:
* Electronic Disturbance Theater.
* Internet -- Political aspects.
* Cyberterrorism.
Electronic Disturbance Theater: Timeline 1994-2002
Dominguez, Ricardo.
TDR: The Drama Review, Volume 47, Number 2 (T 178), Summer 2003, pp. 132-134 (Article)
Partial Access PDF Version (174k)
...Ricardo Dominguez and Ron Rocco
http://www.artnetweb.com/port/grabs/...
Subject Headings:
* Internet -- Political aspects.
* Cyberterrorism.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CEFDE1E30F931A15757C0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
Ron Rocco's Works on What Has Been Spoiled (1994), a mixed media piece comprised of cardboard, Plexiglas, photo-etched copper and artificial light, is the exhibition's most potent piece.
Displayed directly on the floor, the brownish tones of the back-lighted image that covers the central piece of Plexiglas suggests, but does not limit itself to, the dangers of the pursuit of power. The image, which is difficult to decipher, looks like a bald eagle as roadkill. The thick layers of strapped-together, flattened cardboard boxes that frame the image is a stroke of genius, adding to the impermanent feeling of the work.
http://theater2.nytimes.com/mem/theater/treview.html?res=950DE1DD1538F935A15756C0A967948260
DANCE: 'LASER SCULPTURE'
By JENNIFER DUNNING
Published: May 26, 1981, Tuesday
Laser Sculpture Dance, a brief collaborative project presented Saturday at a Duane Street loft theater. The bodies of the three female dancers did assume the sculptured look that most bodies do in dance.
... Program notes credited Ron Rocco with the artistic direction and installation.
--
207.38.174.237 (
talk)
06:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse deletion per the consensus at the AFD.
Stifle (
talk)
12:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse deletion per the unanimous consensus at AfD. The AfD did specifically discuss the sources, and found them trivial or otherwise unsuitable. Nominator ahould take note that DRV is NOT AfD round 2!
Andrew Lenahan - Starblind
13:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
Arrr, I be endorsin' this here deletion. That thar AfD be clear a
snowball. Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum, me hearties.
lifebaka
++
15:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
reply- Relist The original discussion attracted almost no attention, and was closed incorrectly as a keep by a non-admin after 4 days. It was relisted, but for only 2 days additional, and attracted delete !votes entirely. This split was not sufficient to get the proper attention to the article. I , for example, intended to make a comment (I do not know which way it would be) after I had looked further at the sources. I don't want to evaluate them now, for this is not Afd2. Unfortunately , there's no way of doing AfD2 after a delete, only after a keep, so the way of dealing with this absurd bias toward deletion by repeated AfD is to relist. A rush to close has now incorrectly produced opposite results in two successive AfDs for the same article.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
DGG (
talk •
contribs) 16:02, September 19, 2008
- Relist DRV is not a forum where the most smartest people use their huge brains and try to divine what would have happened if we did follow process. It is merely a place where average wikipedians look at the evidence and determine if we *did* follow process. Here we clearly did not. The perceived liklihood of a relist producing different results notwithstanding, a relist is the reasonable thing to do, IMHO. That two back-to-back listings of the same discussion with no change in the article content produced opposite results is a good indicator that something went wrong. Where at least one editor has opined that he would have participated, and potentially contrary to the existing delete !votes, if the second listing was completed for the full listing period, it is especially important to relist it now.
Jerry
delusional ¤
kangaroo
17:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- 'Tis valid points above. I be wantin' to reopen now, for the same reasons. I be thinkin' them two above me be wantin' the same. I still be thinkin' that the close was valid at the time, howe'er. Cheers, me hearties.
lifebaka
++
19:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse deletion, the close was proper. I can't help thinking that the requester is the article subject; the subject created the article and is almost certainly the IP resposnible for virtually all the edits (which is probably why it read like a PR piece). I suggest we leave this until an established user wants to create an article untainted by apparent self-promotion.
Guy (
Help!)
21:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Comment on facts by closing admin. The first AfD was closed after 4 days. It was relisted 30 hours later and closed again after 4 days (not 2 as stated by DGG above). The discussion has been available for 8 days, which is more than enough time for participation. The two AfDs produced opposite results, only because the closer of the first one misread the one comment made in it and interpreted it in the opposite way to the way it was meant. Having understood what was meant, the closer endorsed deletion: "The problem was that I read the initial comments of Ethicoaestheticist (talk · contribs) to mean that he had added sources that "passes" WP:CREATIVE and missed the word "nothing". My only excuse for that is that I am dyslexic."
[1] That was the only thing that "went wrong". In the light of the above, I don't see any problem with the closing of this AfD. If the creator thinks it can be improved, the proper course is to userfy it.
Ty
23:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Hey TY, I kinda see your point, but what harm would relisting it do? If it would give editors the warm fuzzy feeling that the process was fairer, wouldn't it be kinda good to do? If you are certain that the results would not change, then why not do it? It's not a matter of draw-and-quarter the admin or not, it's just a matter of would relisting result in more people being satisfied with the results? If so, how about let's just go do it? If it was done "with approval of closing admin", then it even lets you save face. The ethereal win-win we all tend to seek. So, what say you, matee?
Jerry
delusional ¤
kangaroo
01:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I don't see any problem with process being carried out in the spirit of it, even if there is some
legalistic point of objection. I suggest a far fairer solution is to userfy the article, and then you can work with the editor to address the problems. If they are met, the article can be moved into article space. That seems to me to be the fairest course of action and the one most likely to favour the article, rather than rushing it back into an AfD in its present state, where we have already seen a unanimous response. What do you say? It doesn't particularly worry me if it goes back to AfD: I just think it's not the best thing to do.
Ty
01:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse closure per others above. I can't open all the links, but I notice most (not all) seem be reviews by drama critics, not art critics. They help, but don't seem to me to be enough to get him over
WP:CREATIVE.
Johnbod (
talk)
23:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn AfD (2nd nomination) - The first AfD closed as keep. After a keep close, you generally need about three months or so before opening a second AfD, not two days. If you didn't like the non-admin close of AfD#1, you should have contacted an admin to reclose it. If you didn't like the 4 day close of AfD#1, you should have relisted that AfD or posted a request to review AfD#1 at DRV. Starting AfD2 is not the same thing as relisting AfD1 because the AfD1 discussion is not physically present in AfD2. AfD2 was out of process because it was too early after a keep AfD and it was only open for four days itself. Process is there to allow every one to feel they are being treated fairly, even those on the losing end of that process. Overturn AfD (2nd nomination). In view of the circumstances, it seems reasonable to allow the article to be relisted at AfD as AfD (3rd nomination) with a note to let it run for five full days and a suggestion that only an admin close it so everyone can be happy. --
Suntag
☼
01:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The first AfD was a non-admin closure which any admin can review and overturn. An admin did and asked closer to relist, which he did. The admin could have over-ruled it and simply closed as delete. In this case there is no need for a time lag. AfD#1 was linked from AfD#2 so was accessible to editors contributing to the latter. The closer of AfD#1 has said he made a mistake as he didn't read the comment in it properly and now agrees with deletion, as I've pointed out above. The debate on this article has been available to editors for 8 days in total. That is plenty of time for contributions, and the ones made are all for delete. This article has been treated fairly.
Ty
01:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
|