User talk:Barte/Archives/2020/September

Public Art in Public Places org.'s increasing WP relevance
Hello Barte, Let me introduce myself, I’m HallenW & I’m the one who removed the notability tag from WP Public Art in Public Places article, & was surprised to see such an instant reversion. I can see by your userpage you’re quite experienced. Can I address your edit summary? So you wrote there’s “obvious notability in the number of links” to the Public Art in Public Places archive on WP articles – quite right, that’s what I saw and I agree the notability is obvious, and significant! I see at least 60 [go to: Special:Linksearch/*.publicartinpublicplaces.info]. Such references and links must be beneficial for WP articles, right? So I wonder, do you imply the archive’s quality, impartiality, (WP) reliability or relevance is questioned? I’ve seen none – this org. is non-commercial, non-profit, a public resource, free/open/active/accurate/impartial. What’s left? (& the org.’s website mission/philosophy certainly shares WP’s ethic). And I’ve seen authors of articles appreciate [‘thank’] the data, references and links to the Public Art in Public Places archives. So I’m puzzled: Can you explain how your objection squares with the archive’s relevant presence on WP as a legitimate and reliable source? May I ask if it could be time for a reconsideration? Best, HallenW (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi In December 2018, I made the argument that on the entry's Talk page that Public Art in Public Places wasn't remotely notable by Wikipedia standards. Take a look, and if the situation has since changed, please make a case there. Re: the number of links, there appears to be a concerted effort over time by a few editors to use Wikipedia to gain attention for the organization both by citing it in article references and mentioning it by name directly in articles. But that's putting the cart before the horse. Wikipedia is a summary of coverage in reliable secondary sources. That's what notability on Wikipedia is. The project is supposed to be a reflection of this coverage, not a substitute for it. Looking at your entries, I'd ask you to consider for yourself: are you here to use Wikipedia to gain visibility for Public Art in Public Places? Or are you here to build an encyclopedia with no ulterior motives? The first is dubious. The second is welcome. Barte (talk) 04:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I've nominated the article for deletion, see Articles for deletion/Public Art in Public Places. That should resolve the issue of the tag by getting more people involved in the discussion. Barte (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)