Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ICHABOD


 * 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 delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

ICHABOD

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Ridiculously promotional article based on some random local sources and no independent coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Are you serious? 'Random local sources' and 'no independent coverage'?
 * This article has a reference to a full thirty minute long interview from graffradio, the largest street-art interview source in history. It contains an image from a flickr group dedicated to photos of this mans artwork that has existed for almost 12 years with no goal other than so share free images of his name. It contains a reference to Atlas Obscura, the largest independent American geographic encyclopedia. A reference to Year Round Metal Enjoyment, a classified and referenced documentary released at various film festivals in 2015. To Google Maps's official landmark designation for heaven's sake. Any editor can plainly see that this is worthy of a genuine article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 00aa0 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete No substantial source here to establish notability. Fails WP:CREATIVE. PlotHelpful (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * PlotHelpful can you please tell me which aspect this article does not comply with? If you read the reference you'll find this is a prolific artist that has influenced many people, has become a cult figure and is the creator of a well known geographic monument outside of their artistic circle. What exactly do they NOT have to be granted a Wikipedia article? 00aa0 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Click on the blue links we've cited, they'll take you to Wikipedia's policies on notability and reliable, verifiable sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and "notable" here does not mean famous. Aurornisxui (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:Basic. No WP:RS One "source" is a Google search about Skull Cliff and not ICHABOD. Aurornisxui (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether you've misunderstood the link, but that 'google search' is actually not a search. It's a link to the google maps reviews of the site of the monument that contains 16 different reviews of the art. This was the reference I used to show that this artist has made a prolific art piece and if you search you'll find this is actually the highest-rated art piece on Google Maps in the whole county. With respect, I do not think your criticism is at all valid. 00aa0 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to replace the Google tags and replace them with that of the individual authors if you want. 00aa0 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand what Wikipedia is for, . You also have written a lot of detailed information for someone, per your article "not much is known about." As far as your sources, they are pretty much all useless. Here's a detailed analysis:
 * a blog/podcast - not even remotely notable as a source, nor is it an independent reliable source.
 * a blog- not reliable, not independent
 * interview on some random blog
 * another blog
 * a single brief mention that he is interviewed, not reliable, no independent
 * oh, what's this? a reliable source? - no, it's a blog.
 * a google search
 * a map
 * a website to buy stuff
 * So all in all, not a single source is worth anything in establishing notability. Praxidicae (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you understand the culture of said article's interest? Do you want an autobiography from him or something? Do yo you not frequent the circles of the article you're banhammering? Feel free to go through the Wikipedia pages of street artists and look through their sources, you will find they mostly consist of magazines from varying names that frequently are not available online. This page is entirely inline with other artists pages. Issues like this are what arise when users try and gatekeep topics they have no interest in. I don't think one fully realises the gravity of denying ICHABOD a wikipedia article. Do a search for him, a proper one, and you'll quickly realise his impact on bombing graffiti is far beyond what some everyman wikipedia-editor judges topics to be. All the published interviews you've labelled as simply 'a blog' and 'not reliable' just shows how far out of touch you are with the topic in hand. You literally called the largest graffiti magazine in the world 'not reliable'. 00aa0 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you understand the purpose of Wikipedia? Also, please format your responses per WP:AFD and sign your edits in discussions. Praxidicae (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete I speedied this first time round. I'm afraid that is so intent on creating a fanpage for this artist that's he appears unwilling to read the advice he's been given, let alone attempt to follow it. I have no idea if Ichabod is notable enough for an article, but with the mainly junk sources we are given here, there's nothing to convince me he is. Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  07:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete A search for "Ichabod graffiti artist" produced one weak book source, and a couple of independent blog mentions. There isn't enough in RS to establish GNG.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete All of these sources are garbage. I don't know why the G11 was removed. I haven't found better sources, and if someone were actually able to find sources showing that the subject was notable, the article would have to be entirely rewritten anyway. Natureium (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2019 (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.