Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visual Collaborative


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Visual Collaborative

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability template was removed and unsourced details added back, without any attempt to improve this article. I have tried to find online news sources myself, about any of this creative organization's activities, but have been unable to do so (I wouldn't call any of the current sources 'reliable', simply blogs or art/fashion websites). Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Support arguments by nominator, more notable than a lot of other stuff I end up deleting, but the references only anecdotally mention the subject of the article with the primary focus being on the artists or the art. Chris  lk02  Chris Kreider 17:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Cleaned up with a lot added. Chris  lk02  Chris Kreider 20:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, no indication of notability. Sources are blogs or otherwise unreliable. I've found nothing better. Huon (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Can be improved upon instead of deleting. Article meets some wikipedia rubric for notability. Individual artists who have wiki pages reference this page and vice versa. Passes under WP:NONPROFIT, WP:ORGIN, WP:INHERITORG --JuneHazinek (talk) 03:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Article improve templates added. Cleaned up references. definitely keep Mnanonymous (talk) 12:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - I just took another look, and I'm not sure what Mnanonymous means. There are no maintenance templates on the article, and if there were, that wouldn't have an impact on whether the article should be kept or deleted. The lone new reference does not suffice to establish notability and isn't cited for anything beyond the fact that it exists. Huon (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Solid offline reference to print magazine publication no more in circulation. (Title - exhibition curator discusses platform. Made lifestyles Vol 4 issue 1 Spring 2012)JuneHazinek (talk) 04:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - Notability is possible, but none of online sources in the article establish notability.  "Behind Technology" in Made Magazine sounds like a possible good source.  The "Minneapolis Exhibition Episode" of  Village Square is much more doubtful.  Could easily be a primary source and/or unreliable.  If  or  can provide scans of offline material, I would be happy to re-evaluate.  At current, however, I am not seeing how the notability guidelines are met here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - The feedback is appreciated and responses in action items have been made to article reference list. Your notice about "Behind Technology", article being a good source is right. But scans wouldn't be retrievable and could take a very long time to find since the magazine outlet folded. With regards to the exhibition episode as a credible reference a direct video link of the episode in question has been added which meets WP:YOUTUBE and WP:VIDEOLINK. The nature of the group and its operating model of service to different aspects of the community makes occasion mentions in outlets unrelated to direct art. Happy for the comments would be happier to have "considered for deletion tag" removed.Mnanonymous (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No need to "vote" twice (i.e. no need to preface your comment with "keep") - this is a discussion and the outcome won't be determined by the number of people saying "keep"... Thanks for providing that link.  As I suspected, the show (really webcast) won't count toward notability because it is an interview of artists that are part of the Collaborative (i.e. a primary source).  Even if I assume the magazine consists of substantial coverage, that is only one good source and not enough to establish notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Struck out the extra "vote" —Мандичка YO 😜 06:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon  03:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral - The article has had much improvement I agree, but I still remain to suggest that the article needs more reliable references for all the information that's stated in the article.  CookieMonster755   (talk)   06:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - I edited the article removing any secondary or unsourced references replacing with sourced references whilst keeping notability concerns in mind brought up by the original admin and others. The nature of the traveling initiative is ongoing with ties to the diasporas in the international areas. Documented sources to support info will be added by editors improving the article moving forward. This could serve as an agreement or compromise? Mnanonymous (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - sources are still largely blogs; several don't mention the Visual Collaborative at all, and even those that do all too often don't support the very statements they're cited for. If this is the post-cleanup version, I see little hope that this can ever become a valid article. Huon (talk) 23:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - Some professional outlets use (blog software) to distribute their information, that doesn't make them a blog. I am unsure why this is a suprise being today in information culture many GOV or NON for Profit related sites use blog software. The outlets in question do have Editors In Chief, whom scan content before going up on their respective websites. There are ton of wiki articles currently alive that could fit in a lesser category making them AFD. Doesn't this deletion seem targeted without offering content removal suggestions? Especially since it has been online since 2011. I understand that this notability thing is an issue and would like to comprise taking in seasoned suggestions. Obviously this would be relative to the individual admin, some are open to give suggestions while others keen on deletion. Updated Visual Collaborative details to back the info written up wouldn't be available until their next exhibition according to other volunteers. Its easier to resign, but we could rename the article and redirect it or remove unsourced info until much mature media outlets back up the data for reinclusion Mnanonymous (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's hard finding sources because visual collaborative is a common term. Sources are so weak - one of the sources goes to an Internet Archive page with an error, and others are about the exhibition but don't give us enough info on the subject itself. I'll be happy to change to keep if we can get some better sources. —Мандичка YO 😜 06:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Somewhat concur. General term but may be trademarked and has exhibited in some high traffic communities. Does this classify as a case of renaming the article or a move to a different category?JuneHazinek (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2015 (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.