Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wildstyle (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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Wildstyle
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Completely unsourced article, with no indication whatsoever of primary topic relevance. Glossary of graffiti is sufficient to cover this topic. Recommend moving the current Wildstyle (disambiguation) page to the main title. 162 etc. (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep there's an entire chapter "Ornament as Armament: Playing Defense in Wildstyle Graffiti" by Gabrielle Gopinath, p. 117-128 in Understanding Graffiti (2015) ed. by Troy Lovata and Elizabeth Olton. It's extensively discussed in the article "Graffiti" p. 336-338 by Pat Rafferty in The Guide to United States Popular Culture (2001) ed. by Pat Browne and Ray Broadus Browne. Wildstyle is discussed on 10 different pages in Anssi Arte's Forms of Rockin': Graffiti Letters and Popular Culture (2015), this book contains a number of footnotes to other sources. Please ping me if anyone thinks these academic sources are not sufficient. Jahaza (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The article, as it reads today, cites none of these sources. Since you appear to be knowledgeable about the subject, your help in improving the article would be appreciated. 162 etc. (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge I wrote an article on pieces funnily enough the same day this got put up for deletion. Would be happy to merge it with that article as there's already a section on wildstyle. -- NotC hariza rd  🗨 13:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per and listed sources. As an aside, I would think that the sources being on the page would be secondary to the discovery of their existence, and if not used on the page (I haven't checked) then a morecites tag would now be more appropriate than a deletion nomination. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Tag has been on the article for over 6 years, with no apparent improvement since. 162 etc. (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Right, but with 's newly discovered sources, detailed above, this AfD has done the job that the tag didn't do. Good AfD's tend to do that. If none of us are going to edit them in, and I don't really have that much interest in the topic, at least add them to the talk page and someone will get around to them. Since we now know they exist and will likely end up in the article, at what point does the AfD seem complete in serving what should be its purpose. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep the existence of sources is what matters, not whether they're used in the article. 15:24, 2 September 2023 (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.