Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London art scene


 * 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. The consensus is that this article's content is just too poor for it to be of any value. However, it is also clear that an article on this topic likely could be written; it's just that the existing article doesn't look anything like what a proper one would. Thus, this delete implies no prejudice towards creating a completely different article on this topic. Jayjg (talk) 07:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

London art scene

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Not a reasonably encyclopedic article--too vast a topic for one article. Redundant: there are already hundreds of articles on this subject. Content is vague. Artiquities (talk) 04:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete unless someone can demonstrate that this is the established consensus amongst third-party sources. Far too many subjective opinions and original research to work in an encyclopaedia. I wouldn't completely rule out an article with this title, but it should have to be a properly-researched piece with all subjective material backed up in third-party sources. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose on the whole. The article is indeed somewhat vague & full of common knowledge aka original research, but the UK art scene, in strong contrast to US ones, where every minor city seems to have an article like this but much longer, is very poorly covered except in biographies, gallery articles etc. Where are the hundreds of articles on this subject? Not easily found unless you already know what to look for. Hoxton art scene etc. Thematic articles like this can be very useful as link farms to other articles. Ideally would be expanded and given a more specific title - something that the nominator would be well qualified to do. Johnbod (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So which outcome do you want, keep or delete? "oppose" is meaningless.  Uncle G (talk) 03:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's a proposed deletion, which I oppose. Johnbod (talk) 03:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It could equally well be that you oppose the article. See Guide to deletion for how to express onesself unambiguously at AFD. Uncle G (talk) 04:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per above...Modernist (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge with Young British Artists is a good suggestion by nom...Modernist (talk) 11:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. The problem with this article is that the title conflicts with its content. The first two of the Google Books search results for the title are a book about the London art scene in the 1950s and another about the previous 65 years, but our article is about the "contemporary" (defined as 1988 onwards) scene. There is certainly much scope for coverage in Wikipedia of the London art scene, but those writing the articles need to define what should be covered in which article. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As I implied above, the title is indeed much broader than the current content, but an article with wider coverage, or failing that a more restricted title, would deal with that. Johnbod (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to consider changing my !vote if the scope of this article is changed to something more manageable (preferably if some attempt is made to separate the fact from the opinion). Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Proposed name change: London art scene: late 1980s- mid-1990s...Modernist (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that how it is broken up by the world at large? Or is that some arbitrary Wikipedia-only invention?  How do the people who have actually documented the London art scene break it up into historical periods? Uncle G (talk) 01:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Back in 2006 User:Tyrenius suggested Contemporary radical London art scene or, The London Britart scene...Modernist (talk) 04:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Any name change that will help get this article into an encyclopaedic form will help, but the article contents will need to match what's in the title. Simply picking a title that vaguely describes what happens to be in the article won't be enough here. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm working on a (currently slightly patchy) article on the Art of Birmingham at the moment, I don't see why this couldn't grow into an equivalent article on the Art of London. The argument that the subject is "too vast a topic for one article" is a facile one - the subject is by definition smaller than the Art of the United Kingdom which seems to manage to have an article quite successfully. Expanding the scope rather than retitling to reflect a reduced scope seems the way forward though - there's already an article on the Young British Artists, with Britart as a redirect. There's an article on Glasgow Art as well, that is also currently a bit rubbish, but a topic that is intrinsically worthy of an article JimmyGuano (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. With all due respect to the scholarly nominator, this could be a good article.  AfD is used not to get rid of bad articles.  Rescue and fix, possibly incubate. Bearian (talk) 00:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Snotty Wong   comment 04:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What is the purpose of this article, which I would be able to consider passes Verifiability and Noteworthy test? What is the rational? BLUE DOG TN 04:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:V and WP:NOR. The article cites zero sources for any of its assertions. We have no way to tell whether the content is an accourate portrayal of the contemporary London art scene or merely the personal opinion of its author.  Sandstein   08:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject is the London art scene, construed as the contemporary one. The time frame is not precisely defined. The Contemporary art article places contemporary as beginning at approximately 1950. More recent events and more important events can understandably be given more emphasis. I think it represents a good area for exploration in an article, but obviously it needs a lot of tightening up concerning sourcing. I think its potential for expansion is good—there is probably much more material out there on the subject of the recent art scene in London. Bus stop (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - while an article on the London art scene could conceivably be written, a hypothetical good version of the article would bear absolutely no resemblance to this one. It's rambling, full of opinion, and cites no sources - it is therefore pure original research and should be deleted. I'm all for keeping improvable articles while they're sourced, but the current state of this article is such that it's better we have no article on this topic until someone writes a sourceable one. ~ mazca  talk 14:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: WP:OR essay. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per mazca. When an article is so profoundly non-compliant with policy and so far away from a state of compliance that it would have to be blanked and re-written to become compliant, that blanking should come in the form of deletion.--Mkativerata (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Stubify and restart Compromise between deleting and keeping. Valid topic, yes; completely OR, yes. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  02:14, 4 December 2010 (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.