Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cool "Disco" Dan

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 no consensus. X clamation point 03:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool "Disco" Dan[edit]

It's an article about graffitti, it hardly seems notable. The Cool Kat (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Non-notable person/ artist. Tagged. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 22:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the tag. He was a visible, frequently mentioned tagger who got written up in the press on various occasions. I'll do a little research for sources, but I just wanted to mention this in regard to my deletion of the speedy tag. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as above. Grafitti artists can be notable under certain circumstances. Taggers? Not so much. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks WP:N, WP:V. Versus22_talk 00:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Looie496 (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Sure as heck is notable locally. I added some info and references. There are plenty more mentions in the Washington Post over the years, as well as in the Washington City Paper, particularly during the Borf episode a couple of years ago, when people were drawing comparisons between Borf and the character that preceded him, Cool "Disco" Dan. Even recently, the City Paper web site had a blurb exhorting the new president to buy himself a piece of local lore—a CDD poster. That said, I leave it to the rest of you to opine on whether his local notability taken with any possible mentions in non-D.C. sources reaches the level of WP:N. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is an argument for a Washington, D.C., graffiti scene article, rather than lots of tiny articles about non-notable vandals. THF (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The trivial mentions in the sources added, and the trivia and WP:PUFF added to the article do not add up to notability. THF (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the fact that that one particular person is invoked by separate people in different contexts to convey a sense of the scene in Washington, D.C., implies his notability. It certain implies an assumption of recognizability. I also don't think that multiple, lengthy articles about the person in a major newspaper over a period of years are "trivial mentions". I'm not saying any of this means he's important, but importance isn't a factor in assessing WP:Notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Washington Post article runs to over 4000 words, and is completely about the subject. How can anyone call that a "trivial mention"? Easily passes notability guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hoo boy. Err on the side of Keep. Do we still not have a WikiWho for things like this? Ventifax (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article in the Washington Post, work in the permanent collection of the Corcoran.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient reliable source material to meet wikipedia requirements. Ty 17:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems sufficiently sourced..Modernist (talk) 13:02, 8 March 2009 (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.