Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Splasher

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.--Kubigula (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Splasher

Article is essentially a news story in violation of WP:NOT#NEWS limited to New York City about an unidentified street graffiti vandal, whose momentary notoriety is limited to a series of graffiti events over a period spanning only a few months and, thus, fails WP:BIO as this is not a professional set of published works. Mh29255 (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If the article had some sort of link to a news story about the g(uy|al), perhaps. But no assertion is made as to from where the notability stems. Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 16:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he's made two well know art blogs in the UK, one at The Guardian and the other The Saatchi Gallery. I know UK artistes we have kept on lesser WP:RS. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient sources for the genre. DGG (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this is starting to get a bit absurd. I have trouble understanding why an article on every character and episode of the most minor anime series qualifies as notable, yet a huge cultural flap in New York City over the course of seven months involving a vandal that captured the international public's heart and minds is not-notable. I have been editing under this account for four years, and while I don't waste my time trolling the new articles page in search of my next power trip, I think I have a good grasp on what is notable and what isn't. This is exactly the kind of article that wikipedia should have in its archives--a subject that draws from a year's worth of sources, that gives a broad overview of the subject that couldn't easily be done otherwise without many, many google searches. The Splasher is notable enough to have been mentioned on television and in the international media. S/he sparked discussion, debate, passionate argument about the merits of art, what is art? where is the line drawn with street art, etc. The Situationists in Europe had a similar impact. As you can see by actually checking the sources, news on The Splasher appeared, among other sources, in the New York Times, New York Post, New York Magazine, Washington Post, Village Voice, Wired Magazine and The Guardian.

I usually spend my time making smaller edits than writing new articles, but I feel quite impassioned that this article belongs in Wikipedia. In fact, I was initially quite shocked that there was no article existing yet. I tried hard to incorporate no unverifiable claims, to make everything sourced and have no original research. I updated this article several minutes ago with a new section concerning the cultural impact of The Splasher. If this is not enough to convince that this article belongs in Wikipedia, then I'll give up, but not without a fight.

Please, don't just scan this article and plop down your vote, actually read it, read a few sources, and then cast an opinion. Quick and irresponsible deletion is tantamount to ignorance. As the original author, I am ineligible to vote, though obviously I believe it should be kept. Slugmaster (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of references from reliable sources. Wikipedia is not news, but this is a story with apparent cultural interest. bikeable (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be getting attention from serious art critics, rather than just news reports, so I don't think WP:NOT#NEWS applies. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 00:09, 22 January 2008 (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.