Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sutton twin towns mural

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fram (talk | contribs) at 16:29, 15 September 2014 (Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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. BencherliteTalk 01:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:PERSISTENCE.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sutton_twin_towns_mural&oldid=625682529"