Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Legal Wall

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. Sources would have helped here... no prejudice against recreation if they're found, or creating a redirect from this location. W.marsh 19:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Legal Wall

The Legal Wall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

A wall where graffitti is permitted is not notable Avalon 05:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• The concept is notable, (I can think of several examples here is Chicago) although this wall isn't. I would suggest a Redirect to Mural or Street art until someone comes along to expand on the subject beyond a single example in Rochester. Also, the title is a probable neologism. Tubezone 07:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, without redirect. The material that is relevant is or can be covered under Street art or Graffiti. --Bejnar 08:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, the concept is notable but the article unsourced Alf photoman 15:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid64 22:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect as per Tubezone - as others have said, the concept is notable, but the particular wall isn't (at least not so far as the article makes clear: has there been any independent writing/research about it which could be used as references for the article? If so, this particular wall may merit its own section/paragraph in the main article, if not then it's probably best forgotten). --John24601 22:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Apparently, the term "legal wall" is a generic term for this type of thing and is used in places other than Rochester: [1] and creativecity.ca. Not sure either of these are reliable sources, though ... JChap2007 23:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep Since there is no real doubt either about the existence or the name, I find the sources listed sufficient. DGG 01:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment There's only one source in the article, which is not related to the concept. Also, it seems that the idea of a legal wall for graffiti and a free wall for street art (which is what I was referring to) apparently are not the same thing. At least in my hood, gang graffiti is banned outright from street art exhibits (there's some nice ones), legitimate businesses that allow street art on their walls would never allow actual gang signs. I mean, you're practically asking for street fights and shootings if you let gangs sign. Even the St. John's so-called Legal Graffiti Wall in Newfoundland (like Newfies are notorious gangbangers??!) is an art project, not a chalkboard for People and Folks. Tubezone 02:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. If the author wants to argue the concept of a legal wall is notable, it might be better to create a new article about the topic in general rather than one specific wall. Even so, a quick Google search doesn't turn anything up but a localized wiki, which isn't a verifiable source. -- Kesh 03:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete does not strike me as notable in this particular instance. The concept is around here and there, of course, and that has article potential, but could probably suffice as a section in grafitti for the time being. --Dhartung | Talk 06:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless the wall is in Singapore. - Mailer Diablo 19:30, 25 January 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.