Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Art controversy (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   merge to Scott Kildall. Seems to have already been done. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Art controversy
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This event was / is insignificant. We don't have an article on Wikipedia Art; there's certainly no reason to have an article on a minor controversy they once had. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * merge or see belowone of the arguments posited in the previous AfD that there would be more reliable sources forthcoming has not seemed to come true. It is still obvious that if this "controversy" involved anyone other than Wikipedia there would be no contest that its insignificance would have resulted in a speedy delete. The relevant sourced content has, I believe, already been merged into the articles about the creators of Wikipedia art. There is no reason to keep this as a stand alone article. -- The Red Pen of Doom  23:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you please explain a little: I realize you nominated the article for merging, but what you say above seems to favor deletion? Another logical conclusion from what you pointed out would be to redirect to Scott Kildall. Johnuniq (talk) 09:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Alternative: I still submit that this "controversy" is not notable, but with the new coverage including this; does the organization Wikipedia Art itself now reach the notability requirements for organizations?


 * Keep I agree with you that the art project itself was not notable. However, this article should be mainly about the trademark fair use legal dispute, which was far more significant than the art project itself. There's extensive and varied coverage which indicates this was a particularly notable dispute, including but not limited to coverage by Electronic Frontier Foundation, Guardian, PBS Mediashift, Journal Sentinel -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you think about TheRedPenOfDoom's suggestion? --MZMcBride (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's possible to have a good place to merge it, but the earlier proposal for Wikipedia in culture honestly does not seem to me a place where this fits - that's radio/TV/comics, this is legal/trademarks/fair use. If there were something like "Wikimedia Foundation Legal Controversies (plaintiff)" (to distinguish from "Wikimedia Foundation Legal Controversies (defendant)"), I might support a merge there. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that Wikipedia in culture doesn't fit well. What about adding a section to Wikimedia Foundation? Something like Wikimedia Foundation? I don't think there's enough material written at the moment to justify a separate article about the Wikimedia Foundation's legal issues. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not against it being in the article Wikimedia Foundation, though I wouldn't have proposed it myself for fear of a backlash. I could definitely sign-on to merging the material there as a solution. Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, let's not use this one-minute-wonder as a reason to create a coatrack for any other attention seekers. I pointed out to Seth that the EFF's contribution was to post a short blog entry which was one of thirty last April. If they don't think it's worth more, why should we? Naturally news media will gleefully report any fuss they can find, so brief one-off reports by three columnists does not indicate anything more controversial than the dozens of other items mentioned everyday in every news outlet. Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I find the "one of thirty" objection a thoroughly unconvincing argument - any citation to a newspaper could be similarly trivialized by saying oh, that was just one story, out of dozens in the paper that day, hundreds that month. Perhaps a single item alone is not enough, but the range of coverage from different sources should suffice. - Seth Finkelstein (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I think the issue here is that if these 'bleeps' on the scale are notable. Yeah, they get coverage when it happens, but everyone will forget about it outside a few people. It just seems like this didn't effect enough people for anyone to care NOW, but on the other hand it generated a lot of talking when it did happen. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As always, I think we should be guided by asking "How would we cover this if it concerned something other than Wikipedia/Wikimedia?". The notability is very borderline but there is coverage. If it was any other organisation involved then we would certainly not have an article for it. We might, or might not, mention it, briefly, in the article about the organisation. It seems reasonable to cover it, briefly, in an appropriate other article. A partial merge to Wikimedia Foundation makes sense. A section on legal issues could be expanded to cover various issues including GFDL licensing matters and any other legal disputes over "intellectual property" so it is not like we would be making a new section just to accommodate this one matter. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The lead says the article concerns "a domain name ownership dispute". Therefore, standards of notability for a domain name ownership dispute (a trademark dispute) should apply. WP:GNG shows that the article is not notable. For example, here is a much more notable trademark dispute where a product had to be renamed, while the dispute in this article was resolved by the web site displaying "not affiliated with Wikipedia". Per WP:NOTNEWS, the fact that there have been news reports of an incident is not a reason to have an encyclopedic article on the incident, and per WP:DENY, we should not create articles that celebrate disruptions or misuse of Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to Scott Kildall. The episode was a storm in a teacup, and can be adequately covered on Kildall's page. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:55, 20 June 2009 (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.