Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sutton twin towns mural

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. Strong consensus to keep  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Sutton twin towns mural

Sutton twin towns mural (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article on a mural where the reliable secondary sources consist of one local article ([1]the Sutton Guardian, a localized page of the Guardian)? The only other source I could find, also a local paper[2], is a copy of the press release by the Sutton Press Office[3].

These murals for the moment lack the necessary Notability to have an article here. Fram (talk) 09:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

This article has already been cleared for DYK. AfD seems inconsistent. In addition to the three sources already in the article, I've found this interesting feature on Sutton which highlights the mural [4] A P Monblat (talk) 10:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK doesn't check for notability. Wordpress blogs don't count, and the three sources are the repeat of the press release I linked to above, and two times the exact same article (the local Guardian page) under different headings. So that's still one independent but local source. Fram (talk) 11:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Weak Keep There are sources, albeit local ones. Street art is not heavily reported. Should check back to 1993 when they were created, but these likely are off line. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  

I agree with WP:PERSISTENCE as cited by User:Launchballer. That the town decided it was worth preserving and restoring is both noteworthy and telling. Indeed, they themselves used the word "notable". 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• • Actually one source (identical in two publications), and one repeat of a press release. Fram (talk) 11:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:PERSISTENCE. Street art very rarely receives any attention at all, and for that many sources to be available on the internet despite its age shows that a lot of coverage existed at the time of its creation.--Launchballer 17:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
• That's a kind of reverse crystal balling. The "that many sources" (one article in a local paper, and one reprint of the press release in a local advertising paper) show nothing about the coverage in 1993. And that the town decided a mural they had ordered should be preserved isn't that strange, it's not as if it was some graffiti that only got accepted afterwards (let's be clear, Banksy it ain't). PERSISTENCE is especially badly applied here, we only have sources for one event, and that is used a evidence that it should be kept per persistence? !Votes that interpret policy or guidelines so badly should be ignored by the closing admin. Fram (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. The fact that the work was commended by the Sutton and Cheam Society in 1994 lends weight to the sensible conclusion that there would have been considerable off-line coverage at the time. A P Monblat (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Do other things commended by the Sutton and Cheam Society get considerable coverage? If not, your conclusion is entirely without merit. Fram (talk) 06:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. I did the DYK review and I did wonder whether this would end up at AfD. But I'm generally an inclusionist. As I frame it, is WP a better place for this article existing or does it degrade the purpose of WP? I think the former. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• Delete All this mural needs is a mention in Sutton High Street, which it has got already. Otherwise we have a council press release [5] regurgitated to greater or lesser extent by two local freesheets (NB I can't see anything in the two newspaper articles that hasn't come from the council press release, so they give no added value to the press release) plus a "commendation" from a local society (sourced only to the artist's own website). And err that's it. The mural isn't sufficiently notable to merit a stand-alone article, padded out as it is by mentions of other art in Sutton and a mention of somewhere else that has links with Sutton but isn't in the mural. Bencherlite^Talk 01:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:PERSISTENCE.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • You have three sources which at first sight may look like reliable independent sources. They are from 10 June 2011 and 12 June 2011. I don't think that having one repeat and one rewrite of a press release can validly be considered to meet WP:PERSISTENCE. Fram (talk) 10:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Considering that this mural has not (as far as we know) received any artistic attention or awards, how is this different from the following example:
  • A street is created in the pre-internet era
  • In 2011, the city council announces in a press release that they will renovate the street and add some fancy benches for the elderly to sit on
  • This renovation gets reported (copy of the press release or with a slight rewrite) in two local papers (or local sections of papers)
• Would this street suddenly become notable and meet "Persistence"? If so, then probably half the streets in the Western world can be considered to be notable... Fram (talk) 11:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• What makes this set of murals notable is the combination of WP:PERSISTENCE with the fact that it is an artwork; while the fact that is has in addition received commendation lends further weight to this argument. There are millions of insignificant roads in the world, but only a very limited number of public artworks, and an even more limited number which have received commendation. A P Monblat (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• First, what Persistence? Repeating it over and over again doesn't make it true. You have sources from 10 June 2011 and 12 June 2011, that's the opposite of persistence. A mural can not be notable because it is an artwork, that is very circular reasoning. Artworks are not inherently notable. A commendation by a unimportant local organisation again gives no weight, just like non-notable awards give no notability to writers, artists, films, ... And the "very limited number of public artworks" still ranges in the tens of thousands, if not more. Every city is filled with sculptures, mosaics, fountains, ... but only a small set of these are notable. It is not inherently notable, it hasn't received significant awards or non-routine (or even non-local) coverage. Fram (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Artworks may not quite be inherently notable, but they are a lot closer to it than the roads example. And public art is somewhat rarer than art in general, while at the same time interacting with ordinary people more in that they see it everyday, and don't have to go to a gallery to view it. Finally, I can't imagine many ordinary Wikipedia readers who see this article (if they are allowed to) being perplexed as to why it is in the encyclopaedia and thinking the worse of WP for including it. A P Monblat (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• KEEP Why we are even having this discussion during wikipedia's SUMMER OF MONUMENTS is beyond me. The point of wikipedia (opinion) is that so when someone thinks or says, "I wonder what that is?" the answer that works is "Look it uo on wikipedia." Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. Well said Carptrash 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Really? The fact that "summer of monuments" is going on (apparently, I wouldn't know or care) is a reason to keep an article? Quick, let's start "decade of porn" so we can keep all non notable porn articles! Fram (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Keep It's not the Mona Lisa but it doesn't have to be. We have enough coverage to support a page and, per WP:NOTPAPER, that's fine. Andrew (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. Fram, you are alone. Buried under an avalanche of consensus. WP:Snow WP:Dead horse. You have a fine way with irony. Let's not misrepresent the "debate" indeed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • You forget User:Bencherlite. I am buried under an avalanche of some of the most ridiculous keep reasons I have ever heard. Keep because it is summer of monuments? Keep because we have persistent coverage from local newspapers reprinting a press release over the course of three days? Just state "while this may not meet WP:N as it stands, I think we need to make an exception here". But this echo chamber of "let's twist policy beyond recognition to get what we want" is not really one of the finest hours in the history of AfD. Fram (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I too was unaware that having a "Summer of Monuments" meant that the general notability guideline had gone out of the window - perhaps I missed that discussion. Nor was I aware that the current test is "would readers think the worse of Wikipedia for including this article?" or words to that effect. The key information is and can continue to be included in Sutton High Street (to which this page could be redirected, I suppose) but one council press release about erecting a new information board (which is then effectively cut-and-pasted by some (very) local newspapers without independent thought or additional information) is hardly the basis for a stand-alone article, because we don't have significant coverage in independent and reliable sources (WP:GNG). The press release isn't significant coverage or from an independent source ("For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent" - WP:GNG again); the very local newspaper reports add nothing to the press release and smack of WP:ROUTINE / run-of-the-mill coverage of a minor local issue; the alleged "commendation" of an unknown nature from a non-notable local group adds nothing and in addition comes only from a non-independent source, and err that's it. Bencherlite^Talk 16:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. The talk page of this article says that the result of the discussion was "Keep", suggesting that this discussion should now be over. A P Monblat (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • An IP editor closed this as "Snow Keep", which I reverted. An AfD with this many questions and with dissenting opinions, even in a clear minority, should not be closed as snow keep, and certainly not by an IP. Fram (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    • The history shows another editor as having done the revert (with no explanation), so I am still confused. A P Monblat (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment The record is what it is. There is a clear WP:consensus, with one two dissenters. The reasons and the dissents are in there. I respectfully suggest that the discussion be closed as Keep and that we all follow the wise counsel of WP:Dead horse. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Putting "keep" in bold twice might give the impression, to someone conducting a quick head-count, that you were two different people. Please "unbold" one of them. And I'm confused - who is the "one dissenter" - me, or Fram? Bencherlite^Talk 19:03, 15 September 2014 (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.