Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Take2


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Take2
no claims to notability, no sources to show such, history suggest a vanity piece so, at the moment, it looks like a delete... Marcus22 20:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. EVula 20:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia, so I'd like a chance to correct things for inclusion. I have reviewed the notability guidelines and this paragraph in particular: "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field "
 * Don't Delete User:Take2abc 20, October 2006

I am a painter, my artwork, inlfuence and contributions to the graffiti art movement in Chicago has been chronicled in numerous newspapers, graffiti magazines and online websites. For example:
 * Interview with DZINE: http://supertouchblog.com/?p=199
 * Interview with RIDDLE: http://www.graffiti.org/riddle/riddle_6.html
 * Chicago Sun-Times (Sunday, August 13th 1989 - Tag it as Art)
 * Chicago Reader (Summer 1985)

Artwork is featured in numerous places online including:
 * Deschini International: Designer handbags sold around the world: http://www.deschini.com/
 * Artcrimes.com
 * meetingofstyles.com
 * Comments. Issues with Conflict of interest here. Also, if deleted, suggest article be replaced with a redirect to Take Two (disambiguation). &mdash;Wrathchild (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Take2: I'm no expert on sources, especially on US sources and/or graffiti art, so it would be good to hear from others about these. For me, at the moment, the two interviews do not look sufficient neither do the website references.  The newspaper articles might be but they are, it looks, impossible to verify.  (Anyone know otherwise?) My own feeling is that if sufficiently notable the article would have already been created and there would be no need to have created it yourself.  That is the normal way of articles.  It might be best to userfy the page and wait for your fame to reach others/spread further afield?  I'm sure if that were to happen someone would recreate the article.  Marcus22 19:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Krakatoa  Katie  03:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral/Comments The Sun-Times article is available on Factiva, and it does speak about Take. Unfortunately, the Chicago Reader online archives only go back to 1988, so I can't check the second newspaper article. (But I suspect Take2 is telling the truth.)


 * I disagree with the above comment that "if sufficiently notable the article would have already been created." There are many clearly notable topics which still do not have articles, for any number of reasons.  (To pick a Chicago-related topic, former Chicago Bear Chris Zorich, who was a household name in the 90's and generates 20K google hits, is still a red link.) However, I do agree that it's generally not a good idea for someone to write an article about himself.  Zagalejo 04:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete While self created articles are not an AUTOMATIC criteria for deletion, it is a red flag. As has been mentioned, if you are not notable enough for someone who never met you to write an article about you, you might not be notable for a wikipedia article. Still, SOME references have been provided, which is more than most self-promoted artists that try to get here Wikipedia. A google search turns up some mostly unreliable, self-published sites, but we do have this site which turns up, in turn, photocopies (copyvio anyone??? but still useful here!) of the actual newspaper articles mentioned above that review the work. Still, I am not sure we have enough here to meet two VERY important notability criteria: MULTIPLE sources and NONTRIVIAL coverage (that is, extensive coverage within the source). The MULTIPLE and NONTRIVIAL requirements of the primary notability crtieria to me would seem that we shouldn't need less than 5 minutes to read the entirety of the press coverage this subject has warrented. I was somewhat conflicted voting delete, but, while there is SOME reliable press coverage, it does not appear to be enough in either depth or bredth. --Jayron32 04:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:BIO. Making your mark takes a bit more, I'm afraid. --Dhartung | Talk 08:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a good rule of thumb that if nobody else thinks it's worth their while writing an article about you, then it's probably not worth your while either. BTLizard 10:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable. Obina 14:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete —  NN and per nom JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 19:41, 27 October 2006 (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.