Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Graffiti Artists

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. Creative collaborations are a tricky subject with respect to WP:NORG, which could theoretically be interpreted as covering any kind of ensemble. However, there is substantial consensus in this discussion that this article, as improved over the course of the discussion, now meets that threshold as well. BD2412 T 00:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

United Graffiti Artists[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is a collective/group, thus subject to WP:NORG. This article has been A7'd twice, and recreated again this year. There's still no indication that it meets the stringent expectations that this collective be retained. Even if the members are notable, the organization does not inherit notability and the sources presented fails WP:SIRS. Going out guide in NYT doesn't constitute significant, nor does a casual mention in the local Downtown Los Angeles paper like the following carry a significant weight. "Gastman brought together a wide array of artists for the current show. That includes graffiti pioneers Taki 183 and SJK 171, who were members of the landmark group the United Graffiti Artists, which was active decades ago." Graywalls (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because I believe interpreting NCORP to apply to an artist collective to supersede GNG is an incorrect interpretation. And anyways, the peer reviewed sources I just added would satisfy NCORP -- in particular the chapter on the group in the peer reviewed MIT book. But also the other peer reviewed texts that repeatedly state that UGA was the first graffiti group and the first to promote grafitti as a high art (e.g. for gallery/market display) Theredproject (talk) 01:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- comment. @Theredproject:, Did you read what NORG says? "The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together" Graywalls (talk) 05:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Graywalls, and if you read on, it says “This guideline does not cover small groups of closely related people such as families, entertainment groups, co-authors, and co-inventors covered by WP:Notability (people).” A collaborative art group are co-authors. Theredproject (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - (question was raised at WT:N about this). There's no indication this group are "co-authors" or "co-artists". They are a group working towards common activism to promote graffiti, so they clearly fall as an organization and NORG applies. --Masem (t) 17:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. Also found a New Yorker article, which mentions their contributions to a Twyla Tharp production. Caro7200 (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment did you feel it was significant and in-depth? It was more than a brief mention in a passing, but less than significant and in-depth as required by WP:SIRS. Graywalls (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly did. Caro7200 (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY and WP:GNG. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment Please have another look. An editor incorrectly editorialized and said the US Forest Services credited them. Have you seen the sources? They don't exactly satisfy significant, independent, reliable and secondary coverage in multiple sources. Satisfying all these is a requirement for article inclusion. There just isn't enough significant coverage focusing on UGA. I'll include an example of co-incidental coverage I learned while participating in a different AfD. Co-incidental coverage that happens due to something other than the subject of the article should not really be counted with any significance, for example, the appearance of Kitten Rescue here https://sports.yahoo.com/colton-haynes-adopts-cat-names-160954900.html would be considered completely trivial and the coverage occurred only because of Colton Haynes. Graywalls (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also convinced by [1] (at least 2 pages of in-depth coverage) and [2] (detailed paragraph). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know the topic well enough to !vote on notability, but NORG definitely applies. To establish notability we need sources that discuss (in reasonable depth) this collective/group AS A WHOLE, and not just the individuals who made up the collective/group. Blueboar (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2020 (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.