Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monsters Of Art


 * 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. Nja 247 07:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Monsters Of Art

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability appears to depend on mention in one article-- and that linked article was written by the artist credited as the group's founder. This might or might not be the largest graffiti group in the world, but there are virtually no Google hits, and little to suggest significance. JNW (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete -, mnetion them and it is implied they are a significant presence in graffiti but there lacks the in depth coverage from reliable sources to establish notability for me. -- Whpq (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I think JNW is mistaken, Alan Emmins doesn't seem connected to MOA: So that's indepth coverage. There is a mention in NY Daily News and Copenhagen Post, as pointed out by Whpg. Also an Austrian paper: The article on Danish WP isn't in better shape: Fences and windows (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I had to machine translate the Austrian article. As far as I can tell, it's similar to the other sources which are writing about graffiti and mention the groups as an example of a graffiti group.  Tis additional mention doesn't change my stance on deletion.  We don't really have much coverage of any significance. -- Whpq (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: Emmins is a legitimate journalist, and I'd say the other passing mentions of the group give his piece just enough to pass the notability threshold. — Bdb484 (talk) 04:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - There's no indication on the Emmins article as to where it has been published. We don't know that an editorial process reviewed and decided to publish the article.  All we nkow is that Emmins wrote the article, and has put it up on his web site.  It may be a piece he has tried to sell and has not been picked up by any newspaper or magazine (possibly because they don't beleive the subject is notable).  So for me, this puts me on the side of a delete, but weakly so.  If we can find any additional significant coverage, or get more information about the publication of the Emmins article, I might be swayed the other way. -- Whpq (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It doesn't strengthen the claim to notability that the artist credited with founding the group gets no Google hits. JNW (talk) 02:48, 25 May 2009 (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.