Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C6org

Update: The votes are 3-1 to delete as counted below. I'll now delete this page. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:05, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

All right, what are we going to do about this? I count 3 delete (Andrewa, Wile E. Heresiarch, and Starx), 1 regular user to keep (Robert Merkel), 1 this-topic-only-user to keep (Ben Delarre), and 1 abstention (Isomorphic). I move that Ben Delarre doesn't count, as his only interest is in promoting this article, as shown by his edit history [[1]]. That makes 3-1 to delete. Shall I push the button then? I look forward to your comments. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:03, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't intending to vote, just give you more information about the article so you could make a more educated decision. It's very hard to find info about c6 online because of the name itself as Isomorphic pointed out.--Ben Delarre 10:36, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

An article about this artists' collective used to be at C6, was listed for deletion, and eventually was replaced by a stub about something else. Looks like they weren't satisfied with that outcome. Isomorphic 02:51, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- Could I just take this moment to curse a group that calls themselves something as horribly generic as "c6"? I have a suspicion that these guys might be borderline notable, but it's hard to tell when you can't run a decent search. I'm trying to find them on LexisNexis, but nooooo... it's remarkable how many newspapers have a page called C6, and how often C6 is part of a library call number. Bah. Isomorphic 14:15, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- A very good point, one which really is why Wile E. Heresiarch below couldn't find much about us online. A lot more press has been had offline (The Times, BBC, etc) than has been had online too. Can I also just make the point that it was not us who changed the link on the original graffiti page, we found the link after finding wikipedia as a referrer in our logs, we then filled out the C6 page more fully. I'll think you'll find that you're right about C6 being notable (admittedly this is coming from a C6 member, but...) since we have produced several notable works (the bomb projects at shoreditch, rekjavik and soho and the on the fly project to name a few that are relevant here) and are continuing to do so. Anyway, up to you guys whether you keep it or not, but don't just dismiss it out of hand, checkout the press section on C6 if you want more validation.Ben Delarre 00:42AM, 18 May 2004 (GMT)
Delete. No evidence that this is encyclopedic. See Talk:C6 for the previous debate, this old version for what it was about, and for good measure note that the same IP is involved again. Andrewa 03:38, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The [2] page references C6 as an important street artist group along the same lines as Banksy. We originally filled out the C6 page since it seemed useful information and the Banksy page has also been filled along with the others. I guess our original post was a little long or too advertising orientated, so you guys cropped it. Fair enough. Then you deleted it, and C6 got replaced with the link for Iowa State. This only made the graffiti page confusing. If you think C6 is not noteworthy enough to have a page then fine, but it seemed stupid not explaining what/who they are when they're linked from the Graffiti page. They have however had much press in the UK, and are still producing works that are being publicised in magazines and on the net. I would find it a useful link to have if I was researching Graffiti since they are also more approachable than Banksy and many of the other 'street artists' listed on that page.Ben Delarre 13:14PM, 17 May 2004 (GMT)
- Comment: Thanks for that contribution, you make some valid points. We should note that your only contributions to date have been to this particular article, so this probably won't be counted as a vote. But it's certainly got me reconsidering (not yet changing) mine. Andrewa 17:29, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: vanity, advert, nonnotable. Googling for C6 graffiti yields WP & mirrors, C6.org, some accidental conjunctions, and a mention in a weblog. FWIW the wikilink to C6.org in graffiti is due originally to an anonymous contributor [3] so it's not clear what their motivation was, although putting C6 at the head of the list of "Other important Street Artists" indicates promotion and advertising. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:52, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like an advert (especially the last sentance). I would vote keep if someone would go through and NPOV it as well as verify the facts. But as it stands now it's vanity/advert. --Starx 04:04, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Its a quote from a book, i've added the link to the website of the book if you want to confirm the quote. I personally cannot modify the page to be NPOV since I'm part of C6. But I can give you a few links to external stuff, the rest would involve you buying various books which C6 is now publicised in. If you wish I can give the names of these too.Ben Delarre 11:07, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the quote with an actual stub. No strong opinion on whether these guys stay or go. Isomorphic 19:16, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I read the BBC article, but one such article hardly makes the group significant. If the proponents of this page can provide some more evidence of "extensive press coverage" (being featured repeatedly in high-circulation magazines, newspapers, TV, websites, or other media), I might be persuaded to keep. Otherwise, delete again. --Robert Merkel 01:00, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- Try reading the CV. Mute magazine have published 2 articles on the Everything Must Go piece and are due to publish a third on the NEST piece. MetaMute have also covered it, as have Hine Digital Art and a number of others. The work that is more relevant here however was mostly done some time ago (see Le Pissour) and received press at the time which owing to not being online is kind of hard to find now. The work that got the most press for C6 would probably be Man In A Box piece which was covered on national news and extensively in the national press. Anyway, that'll be the last I say on this, can't be bothered checking it anymore tbh. Ben Delarre 12:31, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, it took a lot of effort, but I finally managed to locate several articles in The Times, Guardian, and even the Adelaide Advertiser (Murdoch tabloid in Adelaide, Australia) using Factiva about Leon and his self-inflicted torture session. Ben, I'm sorry if I came across as overly hostile to this article, but use of the Wikipedia for self-promotion (or promoting friends) annoys a lot of people, and we've had a number of articles about contemporary art that with bugger-all evidence that anybody but the artists and their mates in their cultural studies class who posted the article have shown any interest in their work. Anyway, keep. --Robert Merkel 01:38, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for your effort Robert it is much appreciated. In fact I'm amazingly impressed at how much effort you guys put into keeping this wiki up to date. Keep up the good work.--Ben Delarre 13:55, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]