Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Facter


 * 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Facter

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable artist, sources are mainly broken links and self-published. Please discuss Brittabrowsler (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 14.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 12:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. A lot of the sources used are unsuitable, those that are legit sources barely mention him. No other significant coverage found. --Michig (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep the subject satisfies WP:ARTIST & WP:GNG. In my own looking, I quickly and easily found reliable, independent sources. I acknowledge that the article does need work however that is not a proper deletion rational (See WP:IMPERFECT, WP:HANDLE, WP:IMPROVE, etc). I would remind the  and  that notability is based upon sources BEING available and not upon their use in an article.  A better approach would to work to improve this article rather than delete it because it is an ugly. Dan arndt (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I looked and didn't find such sources. Could you identify them here so that we can evaluate them? --Michig (talk) 06:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Have commenced providing them in the article itself & removing broken-links and self-published sources. When searching you need to search under "Fletcher Andersen" or "Fletcher Anderson". Surprisingly enough for a street artist there is actually a lot of sources available about him. Dan arndt (talk) 09:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If you could list 3 or 4 reliable independent sources here that provide significant coverage it would be helpful to the discussion. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 10:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , , , , &  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan arndt (talk • contribs)
 * Forbes: opinion piece written by the subject, redbubble: not a RS, artsistwa.com: not a RS, news.com.au: Briefly quotes the subject, no significant coverage, Huffington Post: briefly quotes the subject, no significant coverage, artlyst, possibly not a RS, briefly quotes the subject, streetartnyc.org: blog interview, Herald Sun: briefly quotes the subject, no significant coverage, SMH: briefly quotes the subject, no significant coverage, artshub - telephone interview in a source of dubious reliability. In summary, just the sort of coverage that I found and insufficient to support an article. --Michig (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So the fact that he is recognized as a "street art expert" in numerous national newspapers, an art field that typically gets very little exposure in any press or literature, is not relevant at all. I refer to criteria 1 of WP:CREATIVE, "person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". Secondly the fact that he co-ordinated a major street art project, "All Your Walls" clearly satisfies criteria 2 of WP:CREATIVE, "person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". Dan arndt (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment the of this AfD is the sockpuppet of a blocked user, which surely draws into question the whole AfD nomination. Dan arndt (talk) 10:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The master was not blocked at the time of the nomination. They were both blocked at the same time, so it wasn't created in violation of a block.  Any votes that come in from socks now will be removed.  -- GB fan 10:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete at best and then Draft instead because if his works had been permanently collected by major art museums, I would've Kept but there's no insinuates of that thus Delete as, although the news is convincing enough for the basic improvements, there's still questionability. SwisterTwister   talk  00:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, in relation to the preceding comment, the requirement under WP:CREATIVE is not solely dependent upon whether a person's work (or works) is represented within the permanent collections of notable galleries or museums (criteria #4). As previously stated the individual satisfies criteria #1 & #2 of WP:CREATIVE. Dan arndt (talk) 07:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete according to the refutations of the sources by not notable artist, keep as draft. Antonycarrere (talk) 08:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)  (struck sock puppet !vote)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment I am the subject of this articles, and I have a conflict of interest in this article WP:COI. I apologise if I have any of the conventions incorrect here in commenting. I have just seen this in a google search, and as I am not familiar with the Wikipedia world I make no comment on the subject of whether this should be deleted or not. I do, however, wish to add comments to assist the discussion. The nature of street art is not like other art. We do not have our work in galleries. We often create our work in grey areas of the law. We are not often reported on, because we do not seek publicity and often go out of our way to avoid it. In my case, I became an advocate years ago and went into the public eye in order to do so. I am involved a lot more behind the scenes than is in newspapers, but I am widely sought out as an expert in these matters within Australia - I don't think regular rules for notability for street artists to necessarily apply but I know nothing of Wikipedia so I really have no idea. Anyways, just to let you know, not all sources have been found. Please note also [ https://issuu.com/theweeklyreview.com.au/docs/melbournetimesweekly300113] where I was asked to contribute to the article as a street art expert. Another interview at VNA magazine, the worlds foremost publication on global street art    I was also one of the featured artists who created work for the Neon Laneway exhibition as a part of White Night Melbourne 2016   Neon Laneway was highly acclaimed exhibition and performance within White Night. Although they did not attribute my artwork, which is unfortunately very common in street art, my work for White Night was published on the front page of the print version of The Age newspaper and also on The Age website    as well as on the Herald Sun, although it appears the article is now under their paid subscription blocking. The audio snippet from ArtsHub is actually an excerpt of an interview conducted on The Arts Show broadcast on air on the radio on Highland FM 100.1   - the original recording from the show is here    I am also a founding member of Hosier Inc , which is not mentioned,  which was an committee put together to advocate Hosier lane and to fight against development of Hosier lane   where I spoke alongside a member for parliament in my position as an artist and street art advocate - the event was covered here   with Hosier Inc I helped produce and curate two large scale painting projects called Paint Up, the first featuring the artist Adnate  and the second featuring Dvate - all of this was done under the Hosier Inc banner.  Anyways, I just wanted to add these so that the discussion was informed. Apologies again if I have not done any of this correctly but please note I do have a conflict of interest here, but I hope this extra information has been helpful to your discussion.  Facterinvurtion (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 08:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Note that the nominator and two participants have been blocked in two seemingly related SPIs: Sockpuppet investigations/Straightgrain and Sockpuppet investigations/Kunstmolch. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as extra sources have been identified above so that WP:BASIC is passed for the subject, also a series of smaller references in reliiable sources also count in total. Atlantic306 (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.