Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lock On (street art)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lock On (street art)

[edit]
Lock On (street art) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources used in article are either assosciated with the subject or are blogs. My own search for reliable sources discussing this phenomenon failed to find anythinng any better. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - would be a shame to delete this important knowlege. Found lot´s of sources at the Danish Wikipedia: Some in danish, some in french, some in english. 217.61.50.32 (talk) 09:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand - The article is new. Here are some sources (from USA, England, Denmark, Germany and Poland) about the suject(some more suitable than others, but togeather it´s my impression that they give a good picture of the new lock on genre.
Greetings, Mogenskbh (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Have fixed the indentation on your comment for ease of reading. I don't believe I changed the content, but if you are concerned about my changes, please feel free to revert them. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Understand where you are coming from but most of those could not be considered "significant coverage" of the subject artistic style. Some are broken links, but those that aren't are mostly blogs and so could not be considered "reliable sources" for the purposes of meeting WP:GNG. Having had a look through them, it might be possible to use some of those to help build on the article for Tejn (artist), the artist responsible for this style. You might be better off trying to Merge the content of the above into his article under a section about his styles of art. There just doesn't seem to be enough coverage of this particular style to justify a stand-alone article. If the style is still developing and is gaining popularity and might be the subject of more coverage in the future, this might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. If that is the case, it might be worth userfying the article so you can work on it in your own space, for example at User:Mogenskbh/Lock On (street art) which can be created for you. Once it has the appropriate references it can be brought back into the main article space. That can sometimes be a better option that deletion. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Newfound sources added + expanding of the article has begun. The internet is full of lock on explaining material. Unfortunately this art niche is mostly describet on blogs, social networks og in other languages than english. There is some good information though. Lets make this thing grow. I812 (talk) 12:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, none of the "sources" you added are really sources that would help this article comply with WP:GNG. You should have a read of that policy and work on finding some sources (if they exist) to help this article comply. You should also note that Wikipedia already has an article for Love padlocks which is very different - sources for that subject should not be added to this one with the suggestion they verify the claims in this article. They do not. You might also like to have a read of WP:COI, WP:SPA and WP:SOC. I'm all for helping the article to grow and have suggested a way for that to happen while it (currently) does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advise, Stalwart. I´m new here, trying to navigate on this page. Have now deletet the Love Padlock section of this article. I tried to read WP rules where I found them, but didn´t manage to get a clear view conserning witch languages, according to WP, are big enough to really count as a source. If danish is ok (thinking the world got Bing and other translate oppurtunities) it should be no problem to ad some of the "relyable" sources from newspapers and galleries, but if it has to be in english, I see problems finding it when it comes to local but relevant subjects (like a upcomming, non destructive, branch in street art). I would like to Keep the article, but my time investment is limited, so I really need some help to get it going from here. Cheers :-) I812 (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I respect that. WP:NOENG gives a pretty good summary for the guidelines that would apply in this case. English sources are preferred because this is the English Wikipedia, but foreign language sources can be used. I think there would be concern, though, if an article relied entirely on foreign language sources, especially to meet WP:GNG. Regardless of language, blogs are generally not considered to be reliable sources (see WP:BLOGS) - and I don't need to be able to read Danish to be able to tell many of the current "sources" are blogs and would not be considered reliable, regardless of language. So we either need to find some reliable sources (in English and Danish and others, as the case might be) or we need to look at alternate options like userfication. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I agree with you, Stalwart, and i´m happy that some foreign language souces is accepted. I´ve added a bit sources (danish gallerys + one of denmarks leading newspapers), and have no time for wikiwork the next few days. The genre is growing and sooner or later the perfect source must show up. Hope that someone out there with more time wil take the challenge of making this into a great article. Cheers for now I812 (talk) 10:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Actually, sources are not required to be in English whatsoever, per WP:GNG, "Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English." Topics can have entirely non-English language sources and still pass the General notability guideline. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely right - strangely, that line from GNG about them not being required links back to NOENG which says they are preferred. But that's not my point - my point was that editors/readers might be concerned if the article relied on non-English sources and those sources (to non-Danish readers, for example) didn't look to be WP:RS. My point was as much about the sources themselves as about the language. Danish/French-only sources would be fine if those sources were WP:RS. As an aside, the sources added by I812 look good. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Broken link fixed, source added (book in danish and english describing a lock on (+ wheat paste-) artist on nine pages), minor details. Mogenskbh (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could use a helping hand making the language in the article sound like it is written by someone who is better in writing english than I am. :-) Mogenskbh (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, @DipankanUpgraded! Tag me! 08:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep The article is a stub and should be expanded. Good luck editors :) this could be a cool page.Righteousskills (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2012 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lock_On_(street_art)&oldid=1138031504"