Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Downey (Internet performance artist)


 * 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--Ymblanter (talk) 10:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

James Downey (Internet performance artist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Author of two self-published books, neither of which gained much attention. He has performed two "internet performance pieces": getting everyone who can to aim laser pointers at the moon at the same time and petitioning the Nobel Committee to give an award to JK Rowling.. Neither effort succeeded or resulted in significant coverage of him. This person does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. Rezin (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 *  Delete  does not appear to satisfy the WP:GNG AadaamS (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have restored this vote, which was removed after AadaamS changed from "delete" to "weak delete". Cunard (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Of the references/external links, only one seems to be from reliable sources that cover the subject in depth, and is not merely for a single event.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added sources below that are not about the "Paint the Moon" event that he spearheaded in 2002. Cunard (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow James Downey to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)   Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete barely fails to satisfyWP:GNG Although user Cunard above has listed many reliable references where he is mentioned, it would imply that the events themselves might have generated interest individually, that still doesn't amount to a WP:GNG general notability as the sources are about the events and not the artist himself and his career. AadaamS (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability says: "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." This article from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch was published half a decade after the "Paint the Moon" event and discusses Downey as a science-fiction author. This article from USA Today, titled "The man behind 'Paint the Moon' has made his point", discusses Downey more than the event. I would characterize the "events" as Downey's "internet performance pieces". That they received international coverage establishes he is notable per WP:CREATIVE point 3: his work "has won significant critical attention". Cunard (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, barely (if at all) passes WP:GNG. An easy candidate for deletion. StewdioMACK (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please explain why the sources I linked above do not "addres[s] the topic directly and in detail" as required by Notability. The subject's internet performance pieces have "won significant critical attention". How does the subject fail WP:CREATIVE point 3? Cunard (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The book notes (bolding added for emphasis): "A fine example would be James Downey's 2001 Internet campaign to have as many people as possible direct their personal red laser pointers at the moon at the same moment ... in order to change the color of the moon. No, it didn't actually work, but it enjoyed the same status and critical theory referencing as the event promoted by New York City radio host Jean Shepherd in 1965, in which he urged the people of New York to construct miniature box kites and come to Washington Square Park to fly them in conjunction with the transmission of pictures from Mars." This analysis supports the position that Downey passes WP:CREATIVE point 3, which requires that his work "has won significant critical attention". His piece received significant international coverage: Germany: link from n-tv.United Kingdom: link from the New Scientist, link from The Times, and link from The Register.<li>United States: numerous sources listed above including USA Today, the Associated Press, and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch</ol> Cunard (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Sources that directly discuss the subject in his 2002 "Paint the Moon" campaign:<ol><li>"The man behind ' Paint the Moon ' has made his point" from USA Today</li><li>"Columbia artist hopes for big response to 'Paint the Moon' campaign" from the Associated Press</li></ol> Sources that feature the subject outside of his "Paint the Moon" campaign:<ol><li>"Artists' Responses Offer Poignant Views on Terror and Aftermath" from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in 2002</li><li>"Write it, play it, publish it, sell it, Do It - Yourself Internet lets artists get around industry gatekeepers, grow an audience" from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in 2007</li></ol> There is sustained, in-depth, coverage of the subject. Cunard (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'm not understanding the opposition here. Combining the references currently in the article with those assembled above, we have quite a number of big publications covering him and/or his events in depth. Most of the coverage is for the events, but talk about him in particular in great detail. Usually the big concerns there are if the coverage is entirely about the event and then say, credits him once, or if a person is only known for a single event. Neither of those is the case here. NPR, USA Today, London Times, BBC... I'm someone who tends to be skeptical when I see something like an "Internet performance artist" at AfD, but this one is easy. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 05:04, 30 January 2015 (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.