Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surfing Madonna (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. "subsection 371 of section 12 of Wikipolicy XYZ" beats WP:ITSCRUFT every time. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Surfing Madonna
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Previous AfD on this was speedily closed solely because the nominator was blocked as a sock puppet. What strikes me as odd here is that the previous AfD nominator was blocked as a sock of the user who created the article. However, this doesn't qualify for G7 as at least one other (apparently) unique user has made substantive contributions to the article. There has been some discussion on the talk page about whether this merits deletion on notability grounds, but the principal advocate for deletion doesn't want to open an AfD. I'm putting this out there for wider discussion in accordance with WP:AGF. I am neutral. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete with a capital D. You may be neutral, but I am speechless that this is even happening. I am generally just fed up, really fed up with garbage that accumulates within Wikipedia and takes up time that could go into fixing more encyclopedic issues. Three high school students who form a band want a Wiki-page. Overpass graffiti gets a page. Someone's hamster dying will try to get a page if they can. This is how Wikipedia becomes a joke, not an encyclopedia. At some point we should say enough is enough. These are not encyclopedic issues. And they take up your time, they take up my time. Is there nothing better to do? Now those of you who will quote subsection 371 of section 12 of Wikipolicy XYZ about this graffiti appearing in a newspaper, please do not expect me to read it. I have better things to do and common sense says delete it. I will not look at this Afd again. History2007 (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your argument is not helpful here, because there is a considerable amount of coverage in reliable sources about this subject. The hamster shouldn't get an article, because there is no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. This subject does have several legitimate news articles about it, so it is not in the same category as a hamster dying or about my band. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * weak keep I'm not totally convinced this rises above the criteria at subsection 371 of section 12 of Wikipolicy XYZ about news events. There are many articles about this subject:
 * - Controversy among locals: is it a mockery of an important religious symbol or a beautiful representation of Latino culture?
 * there's a lot of different stories outlining the controversy, the offers to take it, concerns about damage to the structural integrity of the overpass, the legal trouble that the artist is in, etc: google news
 * I guess I'm leaning toward keeping. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, sufficient impact demonstrated IAW GNG. Cultural artefacts and events of a transient nature with sufficient impact make fine additions to the encyclopaedia. Fæ (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not sure what all is going on with the socks and what not, but it seems like a work of art that has attracted a lot of coverage. It is too bad History2007 isn't coming back, if he feels so strongly that this should be deleted, he should be prepared to back up his rant with something policy based.  Gigs (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ample non-trivial news coverage from reliable sources, and from international sources as far away as Canada, Slovenia and China. --Lambiam 23:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - per WP:CANVASS I am notifying other editors that I have added WikiProjects and Task Forces related to the location of this article, and have place please see messages on their talk pages. At this time I do not have an opinion regarding this AfD but hope locally interested editors can weigh in on the notability of the subject of the article that is presently AfD'd. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. In 50 years somebody will want to know about this funny little story. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Or if not Just add it to Encinitas, California. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per above. Appeals to notability criterion. This statue has received international coverage. 08OceanBeach S.D.  01:07, 20 June 2011 (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.