Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoot Yourself


 * 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. ✗ plicit  12:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Shoot Yourself

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

doesn't appear to be a notable work of art, just got some minor attention for being removed. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Strong Keep Work of art has widespread political coverage. work was not created just to get attention but to bring attention to the gravity of the subject's crimes against humanity. And the artist Dmitry Iv is exhibited internationally. Strattonsmith (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:09, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Politics. Netherzone (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, agree with the nominator.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment I think the coverage was more for the work's content than its' removal. That said perhaps it was too short an impact and maybe it will reappear, so perhaps right now it is too soon.Strattonsmith (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not a notable work of public art, it received some press due to its removal, but this does not mean it meets our notability criteria. It has not had indepth coverage over an extended period of time. There are hundreds of thousands of works of public art out there and it seems that the coverage of this one is trivial, the citations seem to reflect be the same report covered by the New York Post (not a great source) and the last citation is a mirror of that as indicated at the bottom of the "article": This entry was posted in nypost. WP:DOGBITESMAN possibly WP:TOOSOON. As an event, it does not seem to have lasting significance, fails WP:LASTING. Netherzone (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete I don't see "widespread political coverage" contrary to the claim above. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. I follow art news, Ukraine news, and political news, but haven't heard about it anywhere other than here. (Not that whether I've heard of it is necessarily a sign of notability per se, just that it doesn't appear to have been that widely covered.)Jahaza (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2022 (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.