Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/( )ette Collective

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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ( )ette Collective

( )ette Collective (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Previously, the article has been speedily deleted as self-promotion/not establishing notability. The deletion was contested by e-mail, so I am bringing it here; I suggest giving the creator a chance to clean it up. No vote. - Mike Rosoft 09:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- Freshacconci 10:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is clearly self-promotional--the use of "we" is the giveaway and therefore WP:COI and WP:NPOV. This general guideline springs to mind: "Don't write about yourself or about the things you've done or created. If you or your work is notable, someone else will notice you and write the article." The article lacks references and the artists are non-notable. Freshacconci 10:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No reported/reviewed achievements that meet WP:N. --Mereda 10:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No reliable sources provided on the article, and very little claimed in the way of notability. John Vandenberg 10:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete , no reliable sources Alf^Photoman 14:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - best of luck to them, but clearly not notable yet. Johnbod 18:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - notability not established in article. [>>sparkit|TALK<<] 21:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable unfortunately. - Denny 22:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There's no note on the article creator's page about this AfD. I've just left one. Tyrenius 04:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Savidan 05:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No sources, fails WP:RS and WP:V. PeaceNT 17:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Notability not established. But I can't help but point out that I see no reference to anything remotely related to "visual art" in the article. There is mention of "art practices." But, what art practices? They sound like very sincere people doing very good work. But how is it visual art? Bus stop 19:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Well, it's primarily performance art and public intervention, which is legitimate enough. The (lack of) notability factor comes in the lack of references or exposure beyond the local. Some or all of them may become notable, but they are presumably young, which I've noticed is a common occurrence here: young artists seeking notability through wikipedia, rather than being written about in wikipedia because they are notable. Wikipedia is a victim of its success, I suppose. Freshacconci 19:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment A very odd question from bus stop. They say the "collective created a new and alternative downtown exhibition space". If they are not doing visual art there and in general, what are they doing? Poetry readings? Playing string quartets? I don't think so. Johnbod 19:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Johnbod -- I read that part about their saying they "created a new and alternative downtown exhibition space." But I don't think an exhibition space is visual art. Do you? Is the creation of an exhibition space the same as making art? Why are we considering this article for deletion? We are supposed to be considering for deletion "articles related to the Visual Arts." If there is no mention of any specific visual art in the article, how can we bring our expertise to bear in our decision making process? Bus stop 20:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

What are they exhibiting in the space if not visual art? This is just silly. Johnbod 21:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The creation of an exhibition space can be "visual art": installation art, site specific art, art which critiques institutions. This is what they appear to be doing: creating an alternative space, or a space for performance, something along those lines.This all fits into the Rosalind Krauss notion of "an expanded field." But this isn't really about what is and what isn't art. I'm inclined to think of this as art, so I have no problem with it along those terms. My main issue regarding notability is as above. Freshacconci 20:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Freshacconci -- I certainly have problems with it about notability, or lack thereof. But I am not so open-minded as you and Johnbod, that I think lack of specificity is acceptable. Whatever they are talking about, it has to be specified. If it is not specified, I don't accept that it is visual art. If it is specified, I may not accept that it is visual art. So, why should I accept that it is visual art, if nothing is specified? I guess we can just conduct our article for deletion process without knowing what we are talking about. Bus stop 21:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You might have resolved your issues about what they were doing before saying it sounded like "very good work" above! In unspecified contexts, "art" can be taken to mean visual art, as in "art critic" "art dealer", "art-lover" etc Johnbod 21:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Johnbod -- I thought they were doing very good work because they indicate on their website their concern for exploited women in the adult entertainment industry. I was moved by the extent of their involvement in that, and by what struck me as genuine concern. That is what I had in mind when I said that it sounds like they are doing very good work. I do not know how they use visual art to advance their cause. That is not specified in the article. And, no, I do not consider an "art dealer" to be a visual artist, and I do not consider an "art lover" to be a visual artist. From where do you derive the understanding that these categories of people are visual artists? Bus stop 21:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have trouble with the language. An art-dealer deals in visual art, and an art-lover loves it. Johnbod 21:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am referring to this web site, which I'm not even sure is theirs, but I was led to it from the link in their article: [1] Bus stop 21:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Johnbod -- I'm referring to the good work they are doing in the social sphere. That is what I think is commendable. But after reading the article, I am left with no understanding of what, in the field of visual art, they do. Why are you mentioning "art dealers," "art critics," and "art lovers?" Does this have anything to do with anything? Are you referring to the article we are considering for deletion? Is there any mention of these things in the article? Bus stop 21:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Freshacconci -- There is no mention in the article of "performance art," "public intervention," "installation art," "site specific art," or art that "critiques institutions." I don't understand how you say "I'm inclined to think of this as art, so I have no problem with it along those terms." Since nothing is specified I don't see how you can reach any conclusion at all. Bus stop 22:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Bus stop -- Actually it does say: "promoting feminist ideology through their individual art practices as well as public organization and interventions", "the collective has staged public interventions, performances" and "creating new spaces and sometimes using public spaces", but I think this is all beside the point. They assert themselves as artists. This is an article within visual arts deletion. We are discussing the notability of the artists or in this case, the collective, not what specifically is or isn't art. As far as "not knowing what we're talking about," I feel confident that I understand where this collective is coming from within a history of performance and interventionist art. However, I do not think that they are notable yet in any art context. You may not like the work, or think of it as art, and as such you can recuse yourself, but I personally don't think that's necessary. I have taken part in deletion discussions about artists whose work I feel nothing towards, nor appreciate in any way as art, but I think I can distance myself enough to read it in a larger context of notability. Freshacconci 22:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Freshacconci -- I don't know how one can avoid the question: Is it art? And, I am not saying it specifically in relation to this article. This article makes so slight a reference to art, if any at all, that one has to wonder why we are considering it in this forum. This is, after all, a forum for consideration of articles concerning visual art. There is no assertion of quality or of authenticity vis-a-vis visual art in the article. It is a given that it is visual art. I see no reason to be run over by a steam roller with that assumption. Therefore I point out that not only is the collective of artists in this article not notable, but that it is entirely possible that we are not even talking about art. Bus stop 22:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Bus stop -- I know it's a cliche, but we may need to agree to disagree on this one. I guess the only outstanding thing is, if not the visual art forum, where? They are calling themselves artists, we have chosen to take part in debates on notability for articles within visual art, so this seems to be the only forum for this discussion. And we're qualified (and I apologize for the cynicism here) because we can be bothered. Anyway, this is a good way to clear the cobwebs and actually think about what you're doing and saying and writing. Freshacconci 22:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Freshacconci -- I am just amazed that it no longer is necessary to point out that it is art. No one has to assert anything. It is just understood that whatever it is, it is art. And that is not something I can accept. I am willing to consider anything as art. But you have to make your case to me. You have to argue your point. You have to convince me. In that article there is no attempt to assert that anything being done is art. Is it art because it advances a good social cause? Would it be art if it advanced a bad social cause? What if it advanced a merely self-serving cause, as advertising does? Is all advertising therefore art? Bus stop 22:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this is an example of an article that is a candidate for speedy deletion. That is because it is really not an article at all. Ostensibly it is an article about visual art activity. But there is no mention of any visual art activity in the article. Therefore it falls under the heading of patent nonsense. Notability is besides the point. The article is about nothing, therefore it should be deleted. Bus stop 03:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

And, to repeat: I think they are doing very good work in the social sphere. The article attributes to them what sounds like a sincere attempt to address homelessness in their area. I give them a lot of credit for attempting to tackle some of the most grievous problems in our midst. I think they should write an article about that work. Properly sourced, that could be a valid article. But mere allusions to artwork, without sources, is in my opinion just speedy deletion material. Bus stop 16:30, 4 March 2007 (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.