Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visual Arts Collective


 * 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. NOT NEWS and NOT ADVOCACY  DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Visual Arts Collective

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It's only notability is for the single event, the lawsuit. No indication of any notice outside of Boise for anything else. Fails WP:CORP, primarily due to WP:NOTNEWS. John from Idegon (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The Robert Rauschenberg Foundation would disagree. Furthermore, the VaC is an important regional artistic hub which has become an unusual federal free speech litigant (which is in and of itself notable). As per its cultural and artistic merits, I have cited the article accordingly. And litigation aside, the VaC is much more prominent locally than Surel's Place, which is Idaho's only artist-in-residence program. Inasmuch as Surel's Place has remained notable enough for Wikipedia, the VaC is more than notable enough for Wikipedia. Furthermore, the federal litigation has only just begun. Alone or in the aggregate, given all of these factors, the article manifestly has an enduring notability. kencf0618 (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:ORG. Little depth  of coverage in secondary sources, except for the two sources cited in the article, which are thin articles in local media.  Magnolia677 (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Local media, schmedia. Boise has all the amenities of a much larger city, albeit on a more human scale, inasmuch as it is the only Metropolitan statistical area for hundreds of miles (Portland, OR, Seattle, WA, Salt Lake City, UT, and Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN being the other conurbations). Our media market is such that we are it by default. That said, the VaC's federal lawsuit has received coverage in arts reportage, e.g. at ArtNet News. kencf0618 (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I note here, as a post script, that Surel's Place has survived its second nomination for deletion. kencf0618 (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, a post script. Then again, Surel's Place had no free speech litigation. kencf0618 (talk) 01:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't believe an Afd nominator has the right to collapse opposer's comments as "irrelevant," even if they are judged by him to be off-topic What's more this template is generally reserved for long digressions -- that is not the case here. I've applied a nowiki tag to reverse this refactoring of comments. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And as you have objected, I have no problem removing the hat. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The VaC has won its free speech lawsuit, a very important case for symbolic speech and artistic expression in Idaho. Full accounts on the article's talk page, but here's the first citation: http://www.clearwatertribune.com/news/online_only_news/artists-win-lawsuit-against-idaho-alcohol-laws/article_140f2f8c-85c2-11e6-b94d-93ca92719eb7.html

kencf0618 (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's another citation: http://www.idahostatesman.com/latest-news/article104747276.html

kencf0618 (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Noting the two citations immediately above, please make note of the nearly identical verbiage in them. That's a pretty solid indication they were written off press releases and hence not truly the independent sourcing required to show notability. I also object to the article's creator's repeated use of the description "won" in regard to the lawsuit. It was settled out of court. That is not winning a lawsuit.  Nothing whatsoever was adjudicated. Further the fact that the entire incident lasted all of 10 days and the only coverage of it outside Boise was more of the press release stuff shown above, puts the whole thing squarely in WP:NOTNEWS. That's an arguement best made on the article's talk page I know and if the article survives,  I'll make it there. John from Idegon (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The Idaho State Police have a news release on this matter. It pertains to the enforcement of the law according to the Constitution of the State of Idaho, having had worked with the VaC ACLU attorneys in conjunction with the Idaho Attorney General's Office. The cops themselves say that are committed to "We are committed to working with the Idaho Legislature to correct any deficiencies in Idaho Code, so we can effectively uphold the Idaho Constitution and related codes."  https://isp.idaho.gov/massMailer-web/loadNewsRelease.action?domain=opr&newsReleaseId=8071


 * The permanent injunction was issued, not ten days, but two weeks after the lawsuit was filed. The ACLU attorneys involved believe that this permanent injunction may be a first in Idaho legal history -in any case none of them could recall this ever having happened before. Ever. Too, the sheer speed of the court order of the permanent injunction is in and of itself notable. The permanent injunction was a court order; I believe that is adjudication. Correct if I'm wrong. (The lawsuit itself, according to all parties involved, is in hiatus, pending legislative action in 2017.)


 * As to my usage of "won," it is a de facto matter, particularly given the constitutional, artistic, and law enforcement context. The VaC was operating under severe unconstitutional constraints from May until September; it no longer does so. The Alley Repertory Theatre may now perform The Totalitarians without concern about the hernia examination scene; Let's Do The Time Warp Again from The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1977) may now be performed (simulation of sex act though it may be); underboob may be shown and liquor served.


 * Not only is the VaC a mainstay of the Boise artistic community, it has become the locus of an important constitutional, law enforcement, and artistic matter to which certain other states shall pay heed. So no small matter. kencf0618 (talk)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, the settlement affects artists throughout Idaho, not just those who perform at the VaC.

http://boisestatepublicradio.org/post/spotlight-idaho-state-police-settle-lawsuit-will-stop-enforcing-liquor-law-tied-indecency

kencf0618 (talk)


 * It has bearing on local ordinances too.

http://www.idahopress.com/news/local/state-settles-alcohol-lawsuit/article_9661bd51-0ff4-56f2-b83b-1b3ab8035106.html

kencf0618 (talk)


 * Strong Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Every single source (and all of them local at that) seems to mention it in context of an event about falling afoul of some liquor laws. There is no independent indept coverage of the gallery beyond this single event. In addition, art galleries need to pass WP:ORGDEPTH which is not happening here. There needs to be in-depth secondary sources which are independent of the gallery itself. It is also problematic to use local media in these cases (WP:AUD applies) as they tend to disproportionately report on incidents of local interest. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:41, 15 October 2016 (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.