Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 January 25
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
- 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 no consensus. Wifione ....... Leave a message 00:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Authenticity in art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PRODded as incomprehensible original research, which it currently is. The online sources don't appear to back it up and I suspect they've merely been added because they came from a Google search on art+authenticity. PROD removed by User:Colonel Warden who added a Google books cite which, as usual, is utterly irrelevant to the topic - it is talking about authenticity in terms of genuine or fake art, as opposed to originality of style or use of traditional methods. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment This does read like an OR-filled essay. I suspect anyone using this title as a search string will most likely looking for a more concrete 'authenticity', or provenance rather than a subjective discussion of aesthetic authenticity, perhaps this should be redirected there.
pablo12:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)- There's at least three ways to tackle this topic and provenance is just one of them. Another is that covered at Authenticity (philosophy) — the sincerity of the artist. That then runs into the issue of faithfulness which arises in performance arts such as music - the extent to which the performer authentically reproduces the artistic intent of the composer. This is therefore a complex topic and so it's not surprising that this early attempt at it should be weak. But the topic, by this title, is quite notable and so our editing policy is to make something of it. See The Oxford handbook of aesthetics for a good treatment which we might use as a model. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- That does seem to provide a useful framework.
pablo14:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- That does seem to provide a useful framework.
- There's at least three ways to tackle this topic and provenance is just one of them. Another is that covered at Authenticity (philosophy) — the sincerity of the artist. That then runs into the issue of faithfulness which arises in performance arts such as music - the extent to which the performer authentically reproduces the artistic intent of the composer. This is therefore a complex topic and so it's not surprising that this early attempt at it should be weak. But the topic, by this title, is quite notable and so our editing policy is to make something of it. See The Oxford handbook of aesthetics for a good treatment which we might use as a model. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- It seems relevant to me. Good grief! You have unsourced content by a pseudonym on a WWW site versus a book (Languages of Art by Nelson Goodman) by a credentialled authority, and given that choice you take what the pseudonym writes to be true and outright throw away the authority on the basis that it contradicts the unsourced pseudonymous writing. What on Earth are you all thinking? The authority is what to go with. The sheer perversity of the approach by you, Black Kite, and the sheer thoughtless destructiveness of what Hrafn did in following in your footsteps, is astounding. We're here to build an encyclopaedia based exactly upon what subject experts such as professors write in books, in place of what Wikipedia editors with pseudonyms might write straight off the tops of their heads.
Now get your heads on straight; get a refresher course in basic content policy and the goal of a properly verifiable, expert-source-supported, encyclopaedia that we are aiming for; and take sources such as Dutton 2003 (where a credentialled professor discusses the subject in an university press book), Phillips 1997 (where a university lecturer and museum curator discusses the subject in another university press book), and indeed Goodman1976 that Colonel Warden helpfully found, in hand and mercilessly replace poor unsourced top-of-the-head-written content that doesn't necessarily get the subject exactly right with verifiable content that you can show matches what experts have written about the subject.
You can even link it as a philosophy of art-specific sub-topic of authenticity (philosophy) (which is apparently an umbrella article that deals with more than art), work Spinozzi 2010 into it somewhere, and interwiki link uk:Автентичність (мистецтво), where this article's creator Анна Шабеко (talk · contribs) wrote the original, to it as a hint to Ukrainian Wikipedians as to how to make the uk: article better.
Uncle G (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Dutton, Denis (2003). "Authenticity in Art". In Levinson, Jerrold (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Aesthetics. Oxford Handbooks in Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199279456.
- Phillips, David (1997). Exhibiting authenticity. Manchester University Press. ISBN 9780719047978.
- Spinozzi, Paola (2010). "The Origin of Art: Towards Humanistic-Scientific Theories and Methodologies". In Spinozzi, Paola; Zironi, Alessandro (eds.). Origins as a Paradigm in the Sciences and in the Humanities. Interfacing science, literature, and the humanities. Vol. 6. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ISBN 9783899717594. (refs added by Uncle G)
- Surely if the subject is notable it would be far better to delete this and start from scratch, because otherwise you've got the choice of trying to find sources which fit this original research, or doing the right thing and writing an article from scratch from the reliable sources. There's very little if anything here worth keeping, frankly. But I'm having nothing more to do with this now. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- The relevance of the book CW added is supported by the authoritative Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which gives Nelson Goodman as a key worker in this area of Aesthetics, and his Languages of Art as a key reference [2] . Hrafn makes almost no mistakes in editing, but the removal of this reference was one of them. DGG ( talk ) 14:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with Hrafn's editing, but I'm not impressed with what I've seen so far. The schoolyard level of argument, trying to defend outright blanking of a citation of further reading material instead of just adding
== Further reading ==above it, is appalling. That's the sort of totally uncollaborative collaboration that Wikipedia can really do without. And it represents a complete lack of imagination in editing. How can it not occur to list further reading as further reading and leave it for other editors to build further upon? And why go to such lengths to keep defending that error, to the extent that one talks of a recognized work on the subject by a credentialled authority in philosophy as "refspam"? That's going to such extremes to defend an outright error that it's almost comical. It's completely backwards when it comes to encyclopaedia writing. Uncle G (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with Hrafn's editing, but I'm not impressed with what I've seen so far. The schoolyard level of argument, trying to defend outright blanking of a citation of further reading material instead of just adding
- Comment: The subject matter here seems so elemental to art criticism that it must be covered elsewhere already, even if I don't understand art criticism or how others have structured those articles already. My brief foray led me to the amusing 1920s hoax of Disumbrationism (which was all about "authenticity" and b.s. art critics, in fact) so I'm clearly useless on substance here.--Milowent • talkblp-r 15:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: the book is irrelevant not because it is unscholarly, but because it deals with 'authenticity in art' in contrast to forgery, not to authenticity in terms of originality/artistic-integrity/or similar, which is the context the article is dealing with it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- ....as I said in the nomination. Now if someone wants to convert this article into something about that, then it would be a reasonable cite, but at the moment this is still a piece of unreferenced original research. Let's not have another AfD that descends into an argument about what an article could be, if someone rewrote it. That's not the point, unless someone does actually rewrite it while the AfD is going on. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is the point because it's always the point; in AFD and elsewhere. If one doesn't grasp that then one doesn't approach Wikipedia the right way, that accords with deletion policy. Nine-tenths, at least, of Wikipedia comprises articles that need further work, including outright rewriting in some cases. Articles are not perfect or finished, remember, especially only a mere four days after their inception. That's how our articles, which are works in progress, are written. We write collaboratively, and each do a little bit to push articles towards the goal that they have yet to reach. Go and look at how our banana article developed over nine years. We don't delete articles because they haven't reached the goal yet. We don't delete articles because they've started off sloppily.
And we certainly don't actively militate, as both you and (even more egregiously) Hrafn have been, against making bad articles better by finding and citing expert sources on a subject so that future editors don't have to do that work, and can in their turn make ugly ducklings into brilliant prose. We don't splutter "But-but-but the unsourced article written off the top of some pseudonymous person's head says otherwise! So we'll reject Nelson Goodman as irrelevant and actively fight against the people who work on improving the article to bring it into line with expertise on the subject.". (Amazingly, Hrafn is still doing this, even now. Go and look at xyr edits to the article and the talk page. One has to ask what on Earth xe thinks xe is doing. The irony of xyr talking about other people lacking clue is almost tangible.) Hfran I don't know about, but you I would have expected to appreciate that most articles start as ugly ducklings, and that indeed they are sometimes started as essentially folkloric and inexpert explanations of a subject that aren't really right. We don't hold to the initial article content as Gospel truth for evermore. I'm sure that you've seen enough, and done enough, rewrites to know that.
And if you haven't, there are some 3 thousand articles in Category:Wikipedia articles needing rewrite that you can practice upon. ☺
Uncle G (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Adding a source that has nothing to do with the article that is supposedly sourced by the statement is a completely improper act, and unworthy of defense. A coincidence of the phrase "authenticity in art" does not make a book a reference. "Actively militating" against an editor that repeatedly does such things is the responsibility of each and every Wikipedia admin. Is it possible to write a good article about "authenticity in art"? Certainly. But the article that CW deprodded was not a foundation for it, and the source he added was wholly irrelevant to the content of the article. Adding such a reference is commiting fraud.—Kww(talk) 00:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- You're bending the facts out of shape to try any way possible to make whatever a particular editor did wrong. The facts are that even the original article talked about the sort of stuff that the sources do. It was clearly written by someone for whom English is a second language (even if one weren't aware of the existence of the Ukrainian Wikipedia article from which it was translated), and was equally clearly of-the-top-of-the-head writing. Your idea that introducing Nelson Goodman's Languages of Art into such a situation is "fraud" is laughable, and so obviously counter to what we're supposed to be doing in the cases of making bad articles better that I have to suggest that you take a long hard look at what you're doing. Introducing a subject expert potential source into an article is not "fraud". If you think that it is because of some personal animosity towards someone else, then you really need to get your head screwed on straight. You're putting making Colonel Warden wrong above improving an encyclopaedia article on a philosophy subject. Uncle G (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think my head is correctly oriented. Show me the statement in the article and the statement in the source that correspond, and I will withdraw my argument.—Kww(talk) 11:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- The correspondence is detailed on the article's talk page here. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- I always find it hard to decide whether you seriously believe what you write or not. You seriously believe that providing the chapter of a book as a reference was justified by an ambiguous descriptive statement in the lead? A reference needs to tie a specific assertion in an article to specific support in the referenced material.—Kww(talk) 01:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I was serious. But no, a reference does not have to be tied to a particular assertion. Please see the relevant guideline which explains, "A general reference is a citation to a reliable source that supports content, but is not displayed as an inline citation. General references are usually listed at the end of the article in a References section. They may be found in underdeveloped articles . . ."
The reference I added was a general one, based upon a general understanding of the lead. It was intended to provide a better foundation for this underdeveloped article and so was quite proper. Your suggestion that this general reference was inappropriate is illogical because, like Black Kite, you indicate that you find the lead to be ambiguous and incomprehensible. If you do not understand what the topic is, you cannot say with confidence that this source is irrelevant. So, please now withdraw your accusation of "fraud" which seems unacceptably uncivil. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)- You still haven't been able to point out content in the article supported by the source. You added the reference not with the intent of supporting the material, but with the intent of confounding a deletion. That's not what citations are for.—Kww(talk) 15:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- I pointed to the lead. The source was intended to support this lead, as understood from its title and the lead itself. Addition of a source was not essential as one may stop a proposed deletion just by removing the template, "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason.". But a good source was added per WP:REF to demonstrate that the article might be readily improved. I like to leave articles better than I found them, as this is our main duty as editors. This action seemed to work as the editor who placed the prod did not respond adversely, as many do, by immediately starting an AFD. The nominator of this AFD came along later. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- You still haven't been able to point out content in the article supported by the source. You added the reference not with the intent of supporting the material, but with the intent of confounding a deletion. That's not what citations are for.—Kww(talk) 15:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I was serious. But no, a reference does not have to be tied to a particular assertion. Please see the relevant guideline which explains, "A general reference is a citation to a reliable source that supports content, but is not displayed as an inline citation. General references are usually listed at the end of the article in a References section. They may be found in underdeveloped articles . . ."
- I always find it hard to decide whether you seriously believe what you write or not. You seriously believe that providing the chapter of a book as a reference was justified by an ambiguous descriptive statement in the lead? A reference needs to tie a specific assertion in an article to specific support in the referenced material.—Kww(talk) 01:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- The correspondence is detailed on the article's talk page here. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think my head is correctly oriented. Show me the statement in the article and the statement in the source that correspond, and I will withdraw my argument.—Kww(talk) 11:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- You're bending the facts out of shape to try any way possible to make whatever a particular editor did wrong. The facts are that even the original article talked about the sort of stuff that the sources do. It was clearly written by someone for whom English is a second language (even if one weren't aware of the existence of the Ukrainian Wikipedia article from which it was translated), and was equally clearly of-the-top-of-the-head writing. Your idea that introducing Nelson Goodman's Languages of Art into such a situation is "fraud" is laughable, and so obviously counter to what we're supposed to be doing in the cases of making bad articles better that I have to suggest that you take a long hard look at what you're doing. Introducing a subject expert potential source into an article is not "fraud". If you think that it is because of some personal animosity towards someone else, then you really need to get your head screwed on straight. You're putting making Colonel Warden wrong above improving an encyclopaedia article on a philosophy subject. Uncle G (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Adding a source that has nothing to do with the article that is supposedly sourced by the statement is a completely improper act, and unworthy of defense. A coincidence of the phrase "authenticity in art" does not make a book a reference. "Actively militating" against an editor that repeatedly does such things is the responsibility of each and every Wikipedia admin. Is it possible to write a good article about "authenticity in art"? Certainly. But the article that CW deprodded was not a foundation for it, and the source he added was wholly irrelevant to the content of the article. Adding such a reference is commiting fraud.—Kww(talk) 00:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is the point because it's always the point; in AFD and elsewhere. If one doesn't grasp that then one doesn't approach Wikipedia the right way, that accords with deletion policy. Nine-tenths, at least, of Wikipedia comprises articles that need further work, including outright rewriting in some cases. Articles are not perfect or finished, remember, especially only a mere four days after their inception. That's how our articles, which are works in progress, are written. We write collaboratively, and each do a little bit to push articles towards the goal that they have yet to reach. Go and look at how our banana article developed over nine years. We don't delete articles because they haven't reached the goal yet. We don't delete articles because they've started off sloppily.
- ....as I said in the nomination. Now if someone wants to convert this article into something about that, then it would be a reasonable cite, but at the moment this is still a piece of unreferenced original research. Let's not have another AfD that descends into an argument about what an article could be, if someone rewrote it. That's not the point, unless someone does actually rewrite it while the AfD is going on. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. as an obviously notable topic that needs filling out in several directions. Whether it should eventually be divided up into separate articles for the multiple meanings can be judged later. I am amazed that some are still trying to defend what Uncle G has shown to be indefensible destructiveness. I note from the article in the Stanford Encyclopedia that NG's work covers more than just attribution, and indeed aims primarily at the more general question of the intrinsic meaning of artistic value, the most general meaning of "authenticity" Let's not have another AfD where an article being incomplete is used as an reason to delete it. Perhaps this is an occasion for a speedy close as a nomination based on personal antagonism, not a good faith nomination. DGG ( talk ) 15:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well done DGG, you've succesfully convinced me that there's no point in there being here any longer. Your persistent defence of Warden during the RfC was comical enough, but that comment just takes the biscuit. Please feel free to celebrate with all your friends who are contributing to the demise of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, whilst turning it into a celebration of trivia. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- This nomination should never have been about CW, and essentially you invited drama by doing so. The real issue is not whether the subject is notable at all, just whether the article is crap and/or should be redirected elsewhere.--Milowent • talkblp-r 18:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- HM, BK locked his talk page from editing and left this comment: "Seriously, don't bother. "Free encylopedia"? When it suits us. "Encyclopedia"? Collection of trivial shite, more like. Well done WP:ARS, you win." That's unfortunate because BK does good work around here even though I don't always agree with him. Hopefully he'll reconsider.--Milowent • talkblp-r 18:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- The philosophy of art is "trivial shite"? I would have thought that subjects such as this, philosophy subjects, are exactly what the anti-trivia brigade would worked hardest in favour of. Working on subjects in philosophy, the sciences, and the like is certainly not what most people would think of as "contributing to the demise of an encyclopaedia", especially as Wikipedia's very first few edits (just recently unearthed by Tim Starling) were aimed at starting on philosophy subjects. Quite the opposite description seems appropriate. Uncle G (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Merge or make disam the topic(s) is/are notable, but I see little good coming from the article as it is; it covers several topics, but is not clearly aware of this. We have Authentic performance for music - redirects to Historically informed performance, which seems not to link either way to or from authenticity (philosophy) - & any salvagable content should go to these, mostly the latter I imagine. Or turn into a disam page to those and Provenance and (ahem) Attribution (art) - now that's an article we do need. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per DGG. This is a fairly large subject that wants a deeper article, and what we have here is a fair start. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Authenticity in art is an important subject area within different fields of art. In the visual arts, authenticity is important with regards to art forgery (an article that this one can complement when completed). In classical music, issues regarding historical authenticity have been discussed widely since the 1970s. In philosophy, artistic authenticity held great sway over the beliefs of Paul Tillich. These examples are coming from one who is decidedly not an expert in any of these fields; I'm there's much more information to flesh out. When completed, this article can be a great overview of these more precise topics. ThemFromSpace 19:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Five minutes in google books yields the following, and there should be much more than this
- Meaning and authenticity: further essays on the sociology of art by César Graña
- Performance and authenticity in the arts by Salim Kemal
- Art and Authenticity by Jan Lloyd Jones
- Also books by/about the philosophers Paul Tillich, Martin Heidegger, Arthur Schopenhauer, etc
- ThemFromSpace 19:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Five minutes in google books yields the following, and there should be much more than this
- Keep' - highly notable topic, and not just forgery. attribution of old paintings is on the news regularly.. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per DGG and Uncle G. Jusdafax 05:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. I can't see how this article can consist of anything but opinionated or original research. It's difficult to read and uses nebulous, confusing statements.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Then you have not read the discussion so far before joining in. Go up to the top of this discussion and read from the start, paying attention to the mentions of credentialled experts in philosophy who have written at length about the subject. Uncle G (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Yaksar has it right. It's original research and cannot see a way to write a NPOV article here. AniMate 06:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. The concept is so vague there's little chance this will ever become an encyclopedia article rather than an essay. Part of the definition of what an encyclopedia is is that its articles are structured by well-delineated, well-defined objects, and not vague essay topics like this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Also, the article seems to be all about possible meanings the terms could have, or ways one could describe it. There is no definite or encyclopedic understanding of the term.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Go tell that to Jerrold Levinson who wrote the "Art, Authenticity in" article in Donald M. Borchert's Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and see what response you get. It's sad to see that people with pseudonyms on Wikipedia are demonstrating exactly why Wikipedia is traditionally said to be poor at covering philosophy. ("It couldn't possibly be a subject that scholars have written about." Well it is. "It's not clear and there are multiple understandings of the idea." Well philosophy is sometimes like that. "I don't understand it." Well philosophy is sometimes like that, too; but we don't delete articles because a couple of people with pseudonyms on a WWW site are not Jerrold Levinson.) Uncle G (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Also, the article seems to be all about possible meanings the terms could have, or ways one could describe it. There is no definite or encyclopedic understanding of the term.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete whilst this subject may merit an encyclopedia article, the article as currently exists is anything but encyclopedic. It's original research. It's also quite unintelligible to the average reader. Get rid of this version and if someone who is knowledgeable on the subject wishes to start anew in accordance with our editing standards then good. Lovetinkle (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - While a bit thin at the moment, given the sources provided here, I see no reason to either scrap & start over or to throw it in the junkpile. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per Yaksar and Fut.Perf. [CharlieEchoTango] 07:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete and allow a re-write from scratch without the previous material. A re-write should be based on references found rather than trying to justify the current Original Research based on references found after it was written. I suggest any of those who've written keep here are experienced veteran editors capable of doing that in less time than it would take to argue any further in this discussion. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- You haven't paid attention to the edit history. Several people who have written here have already worked on the article. And we don't delete articles because they once started out with some off-the-top-of-the-head writing from the Write What You Know school of Wikipedia writing (as opposed to the Write on the Basis That You Know Nothing school). Many of our articles did. Uncle G (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I just don't see this as a basis for a proper NPOV article. --Kleinzach 07:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: take WP:OR essay on a phrase, add random references for that phrase (which may or may not take the same meaning for the phrase as the original essay) and get incoherent mess. There is most probably a notable topic here somewhere (and quite probably several clearly distinguishable ones), but until the article picks which meaning of "authenticity in art" its on, sticks to it, and sources that meaning, this article will remain fundamentally malformed. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, the structure the article currently has is not far off the strucure of the piece by Dutton for the Oxford Book of Aesthetics (OUP, 2003) cited above by Col. Warden, setting out "nominal authenticity" (ie. authenticity as distinct from forgery), "historical authenticity" (with particular reference to music, sec 2.5), and then "expressive authenticity" as relevant subdivisions of the over subject. It seems to me that the structure we now have at the article in fact is quite a good framework for going forward. Jheald (talk) 08:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD, and read through the summaries that appear. [3] "Authenticity in art occurs when artists use the kind of insight that comes from thorough historical awareness and deep personal experience." The New York Times published an article about a book titled "Authenticity in Art: tha Scientific Detection of Forgery" by Dr. Flemings. Two different concepts, both valid for articles of their own perhaps, but then people would just say to merge them together anyway probably. Dream Focus 07:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- The nominator of this article contacted various editors about this article after sending it to AFD. First at [4] then at [5] he says "Your favourite editor" and links to it without saying anything more. That one seems like canvassing to me. Telling someone that an editor they argue with constantly has an AFD, and pointing to it, without anything else being said. It is then mentioned at [6] [7]. So four users were contacted. Where was this other conversation had at, and was everyone involved contacted, or just those that might be against a certain editor? The nominator claims to have retired again, but I'm sure he is still around to comment on this. Dream Focus 07:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- BTW, this edit [8] wiped away some of the discussion here, including one of the keep !votes, i have no idea why.--Milowent • talkblp-r 07:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- I restored it. That is odd. Probably just editing an older version of the AFD? Dream Focus 08:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- (ec's) Don't be too fast to blame BK, as it looks like it's my fault. It appears I edited an earlier version and accidently wiped out some comments. My extreme apologies. If you have fixed it I am most thankful. Jusdafax 08:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- I restored it. That is odd. Probably just editing an older version of the AFD? Dream Focus 08:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Obviously the article needs huge expansion -- at the moment it does little more than just stake out its scope. But sources clearly are available, and this is an important topic (witness the angst about artists particularly in the music industry "selling out"). The philosophy article is mostly about existentialism, and technical -- it's useful to have a separate article on the general cultural idea of authenticity. As for FPaS saying the topic is "vague", I suspect that could be said about any stub on a theory-orientated notion in the humanities, until the stub is fleshed out and concretely references. These articles on rather general humanities ideas are more difficult than just listing a band's discography or the physical properties of some chemical substance -- for example, I've witnessed the article on sociological marginalization stagger forward over the years, and it could still use a fair deal of help -- but that is absolutely not a reason for us as an encyclopedia not to try to make the attempt, even if to begin with the stub as it starts out is quite crude and limited. Jheald (talk) 08:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment There's already an article about what selling out means, so info on that can go there. Anything about actual authenticity in the sense of the opposite of forgery should go in the art forgery article. Other than that, this is more of an essay than an encyclopedic article. Just because someone's written on it doesn't mean it's encyclopedic (otherwise this encylcopedia would be full of articles like "The Passion of Dance" or "Finding Beauty in New York." Also, a subject like marginalization, while complicated, has a definite subject and explanation. This article seems to mostly be "some people think it's x, other's think it's y, which is right?"--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment to Jheald: Why do you think the article in its present condition should be a published page in the encyclopedia? Is it likely to be of value for the reader? If not, then surely it shouldn't be here. --Kleinzach 08:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, even in its present state I think it's of some use. It provides a useful dichotomy of different senses of "authenticity", and some references to follow up. That's not a bad start for a stub of this length. But at this stage probably its prime value is in providing a starting framework inviting expansion. Jheald (talk) 09:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- The AFD determines if an article's subject is valid for an article. If you don't like the condition its in, that's not a valid reason to delete it. And there is no requirement to prove anything will be of value for the reader. Dream Focus 08:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- If we determine that it would be better off starting from scratch then deletion is a valid option. A pure re-write is actually disadvantaged by maintaining a history and it is a good idea to shed the GFDL history when we've determined there are issues with the previous text. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- A rewrite would only be necessary if the subject of the article was encyclopedic. While this may make a great topic for an essay, encyclopedic entries need to be based on more concrete subjects, as per my comments above.--Yaksar (let's chat) 09:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- A rewrite is a bad idea. Its always better to use what's alright there, instead of starting from scratch. Articles are more likely to get done, if there is something already started there to work with. Dream Focus 09:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Dream Focus: "Its always better to use what's alright there". Hmm. Let's temper our judgement with common sense. If we followed that logic there would be little point in having an Afd process. All articles, however bad, would be considered as 'works in progress' meriting publication. --Kleinzach 10:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. Also see WP:BEFORE. The article's subject is notable, and there are references to prove that. That's all that matters. Dream Focus 10:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- WP:NOTCLEANUP says "If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted." However in this case 'good content' is exactly what is lacking. --Kleinzach 11:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. Also see WP:BEFORE. The article's subject is notable, and there are references to prove that. That's all that matters. Dream Focus 10:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Dream Focus: "Its always better to use what's alright there". Hmm. Let's temper our judgement with common sense. If we followed that logic there would be little point in having an Afd process. All articles, however bad, would be considered as 'works in progress' meriting publication. --Kleinzach 10:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- A rewrite is a bad idea. Its always better to use what's alright there, instead of starting from scratch. Articles are more likely to get done, if there is something already started there to work with. Dream Focus 09:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- A rewrite would only be necessary if the subject of the article was encyclopedic. While this may make a great topic for an essay, encyclopedic entries need to be based on more concrete subjects, as per my comments above.--Yaksar (let's chat) 09:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- If we determine that it would be better off starting from scratch then deletion is a valid option. A pure re-write is actually disadvantaged by maintaining a history and it is a good idea to shed the GFDL history when we've determined there are issues with the previous text. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- Keep The article deals with a notable topic, and the different aspects of authenticity in art are worth discussion in one article, even if there are (eventually) separate articles for each aspect. Inversion (music) seems to me to be a useful analogy. The article has some good content and some of this is referenced. I have not found over-riding concerns (e.g. copyright) and such matters have not been raised here. To me there seems to be no policy-based reason for deletion and so the article should be kept. It is, as always, unhelpful that wikipolitics has intruded. Thincat (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- As discussed above and below, there are already several articles dealing with the various meanings of this title, some of which actually have specific relevant content, instead of vague wafflings. This is not a useful grouping, except for a disam page. Johnbod (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Redirect to Provenance which is the main article for the main topic, and will be what people would be looking for under this title. The more general musings on "authenticity" are certainly important but maybe too vague for an encyclopedia. Jaque Hammer (talk) 12:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, that would not be suitable. Provenance is only one aspect of deciding whether a work of art is genuinely what it is said to be. Art forgery is on the whole more relevant, or authenticity (philosophy). You are right in thinking that this is not a good title for an article on the subject, if only because it is so ambiguous. As I have said above, we do need an article called something like attribution (art). But it should not be under this title. Johnbod (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Let's just look at the article's intro: "Authenticity in art has a variety of meanings centered around issues involving the credibility of transmission, the authenticity of the sample. The term is also used to refer to the originality of a work and in this sense is opposed to the concept of plagiarism." The second sentence is basically covered by provenance or art forgery. The first basically just says "this term could be a lot of different things depending on how you interpret it." "The credibility of transmission? The authenticity of the sample? There's no clear meaning for this term, just ways it could interpreted it in essays, and it has no real place in an encyclopedia.--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Uncle G has already cited a entry for this topic in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Here's another encyclopedic entry. These entries demonstrate by example that an encyclopedic treatment of the topic is feasible. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but this isn't it. Currently it is twaddle, its not even a stub. It mixes forgery and plagiarism, with authenticity of style, authenticity of process, and some form of waccy baccy hippy 'keep it real man' idealism. Which is it? If the article can figure out what it is about then have it in main space other wise bury it along with the other detritus. John lilburne (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- That is the weak argument of WP:RUBBISH. Our editing policy is that "Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." Colonel Warden (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Perfection is not the issue, no one expects a polished and finished article right from the outset. What the problem with this article is is that it doesn't appear to know where it is going. There are two, possibly three, articles in the current piece. It needs to decide which it is. Move it to user space and work out what its meant to be about rather than leaving it as random jottings in main space. John lilburne (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- The article you cite just above deals exclusively with Authenticity in popular music, which indeed would be an article worth having. But why lump it in with visual art issues, and historically authentic classical music performance, which are linked only by the word "authentic"? Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Even in the visual arts there are issues of authenticity, separate from forgery and plagiarism. For example last year the "BBC Wildlife photograph of the year" was revoked because the photograph was of a 'trained' fox. The fashion and cosmetic industry have similar problems regarding the authenticity of photographs of models. At issue with those two examples is whether everything that is claimed or implied in a work is true or not. John lilburne (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- And some of those points could be good examples in an article about staged photos, or photo manipulation, of even photo op. It does not help explain this murky article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Currently the article is muddling multiple concepts, it should be fixed so that its scope is clear. John lilburne (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete This is nothing but badly written original research. SanchiTachi (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per DGG. I see the here problems as surmountable. Qrsdogg (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment there are indeed some times when the best course for a low quality article is to delete and start over. I've said it here occasionally, and I've told it quite often to people whose articles I have deleted at speedy.This occurs when all the versions are contaminated with copyvio, or the article is too hopelessly promotional to be worth rewriting for the small salvageable material, or in some cases of BLP violation or blatant prejudice--in other words, when the actual material in the edit history is not merely worthless, but harmful. It never is the case with merely bad writing , and certainly not with incomplete writing, or a disagreement about emphasis. All articles grow, and nobody is obliged to cover all aspects at the berginning. There are also times when it is actually necessary to use IAR to justify an AfD to force improvement in an article--it can be the only way of breaking into a walled garden of idiosyncratic or promotional articles, or dealing with a hopeless recalcitrant editor or group of editions. (I've brought a few articles here on that basis, and probably will bring more). What we have here is a case of disagreement about emphasis, and perhaps the misunderstanding of the original author that there was only one use of the term. We deal with both sorts of problems by adding the missing material. In practice attempts to remove such articles here are usually the result of either a subject or personal conflict, or sometimes an fringy view about either the topic, ort about the encyclopedia. Policy is clear: deletion is the last alternative if nothing else will serve.
- some of the comments above need particular answers because of the need for clarity about the nature of Wikipedia editing: "There are two, possibly three, articles in the current piece. Move it to user space". We could say that about almost any Wikipedia article on a general topic, but the encyclopedia grows by expanding articles in Wikipedia space , and eventually splitting some of them. That's the whole idea of open editing. But sometimes in general topics with amorphous boundaries it is better not to split but to keep the aspects together in one article, for ease of understanding each of them, and because the inquirer may well themselves be confused, and needs to see them all. It's my guess that this will prove to be one such topic: the meanings of authenticity probably overlap. That's the case for a great many topics in the humanities. I note that the multiple articles on this subject in Encyclopedia of philosophy are deliberate POV splits--their policy is to give the expert editors full opportunity to use their own perspective--and if multiple articles are needed to express all expert views, that's what they have. We, of course, try to avoid that—not being experts, and not here to express our individual perspectives. DGG ( talk ) 23:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- First we have Authenticity (A) forgery and plagiarism where a claim is made that X was the product Y; this is either true or false. Then we have Authenticity (B) where a claim is made as to whether a performance of a work of Baroque music sounds as it would have done to a 17th century audience; this does not have a true or false answer it is subjective, a meta discussion, employing different variables. The type of Authenticity(A) is not the same as the type of Authenticity(B) you cannot make any meaningful statement that encompasses both types of Authenticity. What this article seeks to do is the equivalent of trying equate Bear (to carry) with Bear (the animal), and probably Bear (market) too. Good luck on that! John lilburne (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- There is also (C), whether the work expresses the true internal personality of the creator. And that too is subjective, but being subjective does not mean it cannot be discussed, and it's been shown that sources do discuss it. For some things both multi-meaning and very subjective, see the article on Truth, or Justice. (and, btw, the answers to your (A) can be much more than yes or no, & jugements remain in a good part subjective--sometimes on the basis of whether the work meets (C), and for (B), there are both objective and subjective criteria. The three meanings are in fact related.) (&, fwiw, bear market is in fact derived from the animal, while bear a burden is a separate word that in middle and modern english has the same spelling, but different origins.--cf. OED) DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- First we have Authenticity (A) forgery and plagiarism where a claim is made that X was the product Y; this is either true or false. Then we have Authenticity (B) where a claim is made as to whether a performance of a work of Baroque music sounds as it would have done to a 17th century audience; this does not have a true or false answer it is subjective, a meta discussion, employing different variables. The type of Authenticity(A) is not the same as the type of Authenticity(B) you cannot make any meaningful statement that encompasses both types of Authenticity. What this article seeks to do is the equivalent of trying equate Bear (to carry) with Bear (the animal), and probably Bear (market) too. Good luck on that! John lilburne (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- (outdent)Well I'm glad you've mentioned dictionary definitions because this is what this article is: a list of definitions (WP:DICT) for Authenticity. They don't mix and match in any real sense. You cannot say that a performance of a Bach score, that doesn't use instruments contemporary with the time, is a forgery without sounding foolish. John lilburne (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- some of the comments above need particular answers because of the need for clarity about the nature of Wikipedia editing: "There are two, possibly three, articles in the current piece. Move it to user space". We could say that about almost any Wikipedia article on a general topic, but the encyclopedia grows by expanding articles in Wikipedia space , and eventually splitting some of them. That's the whole idea of open editing. But sometimes in general topics with amorphous boundaries it is better not to split but to keep the aspects together in one article, for ease of understanding each of them, and because the inquirer may well themselves be confused, and needs to see them all. It's my guess that this will prove to be one such topic: the meanings of authenticity probably overlap. That's the case for a great many topics in the humanities. I note that the multiple articles on this subject in Encyclopedia of philosophy are deliberate POV splits--their policy is to give the expert editors full opportunity to use their own perspective--and if multiple articles are needed to express all expert views, that's what they have. We, of course, try to avoid that—not being experts, and not here to express our individual perspectives. DGG ( talk ) 23:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think any people aren't realizing that just because a famous or renowned person writes on a subject, it does not necessarily make it encyclopedic. Roger Ebert may write a great article about film and preservation and how it has a deep meaning, for example, but that does not mean that an article on "Ephemerality and Film" would be fitting. And any argument about forgery can not at all be used to support this article, as articles on that topic already exist.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- (I.)When the person is the author of one of the standard books on the subject, or the author of a major article in a specialized encyclopedia, or someone listed in such sources as being an authority, then it very much shows notability. (II) Even if the person is not, but the material is published in a reliable source known for selectivity and editing, we still have the WP:GNG, which remains the most widely accepted standard of notability here. I think it needs to be used with more care than usually done, but I along with essentially everybody here accept it as the major & indispensable guideline. (III) Basically, your argument above, is "I don't think it's important, regardless of the sources," regardless of the sources is the essence of how not to edit Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. "Authenticity in Art" is clearly a notable concept(s). Yes, the article needs a good deal of development, and it might easily end up evolving into two or more articles covering different interpretations of the phrase. But we've got indications of notability, we've got a start on some sources which can be used for development, and we've got the beginnings of an article which I think has potential. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- For the record, I have not read the article, and I do not intend to. However, I would like to remind everyone that just because an article on (x) is shit, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have an article on (x). The inverse is true as well: just because (x) is a notable subject, that doesn't mean we need to put up with a shit article about it. DS (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- I hate to sound rude, but if you don't read the article your opinion isn't particularly helpful (but it would be appreciated if you did!) But the problem isn't just that the article is, well, sub-par. It is not about anything in particular, and does not really ever establish a subject.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Per Uncle G. Well said.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Uncle G ("We're here to build an encyclopedia based exactly upon what subject experts such as professors write in books"). Background: I've never liked working on broad scoped topics because they require contributions from editors with extra ordinary editing skills to whittle down voluminous reliable source material into a relatively small articles. When developed only by ordinary capable editors, such articles usually become original research by not properly sampling from all available reliable source material or improperly sampling from non reliable sources (e.g., taking the easy way out and using blogs, etc.). The AfD issues in these cases is whether the article is so far removed from policy (whether it is too deep into original research, etc.), that it is better to reboot and start over. Opinion: This topic is a legit, broad scope topic that could include things like Moral rights (copyright law) and Film colorization controversy. Authenticity in Art was a popular topic from 1972 to 1992.[9] Google books shows plenty of top scholars tackling the topic,[10] with many touching on the issue of physical authenticy/forgery.[11] Even when nominated for AfD six days after its creation,[12] the problems with the article were few and correctable through the ordinary editing process that happens over time. Successful development of broad scoped topics, e.g., Vampire, Polymath, result in Wikipedia's best articles. This AfD is a very heavy handed approach and more respect and time should have been given to the PROD response given that this article was just created on 19 January 2011. A review of WP:DONTBITE is warranted as well. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- The main difference between this article and other major articles you mentioned is that the other subjects' articles, while large and probably complicated to write, undoubtably had a place in an encyclopedia. This article basically takes some things that are encyclopedia worthy (and many of which are already covered in other articles or their own articles) and lumps them with vague theories and concepts which are originally research or simply not encyclopedic. And once again, a professor covering a subject does not make something encyclopedic, as per my comments above. --Yaksar (let's chat) 18:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- So, why can't we just take out the bits that are not worthy and keep the bits that you agree are worthy? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Because the bits that are worthy either already have articles or should be covered under a much more fitting title than "Authenticity of Art." The points about authenticity in music, for example, seem to be possibly worth expansion but are not really related to the other parts of this article, and it would be wrong to try to link them.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, OK, thanks for explaining. I do think that the more general topic is sufficiently notable to stand alone from the specifics, such as music, but I understand what you're saying. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- And that, my friends, is what you call civility. High five!--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hehe, yes - we should give lessons :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- In between all the mutual civility and admiration, I think you chaps have hit upon something; the meaning of 'art' is crucial here, and many of the essays referenced take it to mean what used to be called the 'fine arts' - including painting, sculpture but also theatre, opera, dancejaysus help me etc. Questions of authenticity vary with the 'art' under discussion.
pablo23:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- In between all the mutual civility and admiration, I think you chaps have hit upon something; the meaning of 'art' is crucial here, and many of the essays referenced take it to mean what used to be called the 'fine arts' - including painting, sculpture but also theatre, opera, dancejaysus help me etc. Questions of authenticity vary with the 'art' under discussion.
- Hehe, yes - we should give lessons :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- And that, my friends, is what you call civility. High five!--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, OK, thanks for explaining. I do think that the more general topic is sufficiently notable to stand alone from the specifics, such as music, but I understand what you're saying. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - A bad personal essay masquerading as a Wikipedia article supported by many flawed !keeps. This is the Wikipedia I <3 to H8. Each and every day. Tarc (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- So don't read it Tarc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- No, you.
Facepalm Tarc (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- No, you.
- So don't read it Tarc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Uzma pretty much nailed it above. This is exactly what I expect a stub article on a broad philosophical topic to look like. Let's not tear down those ugly two-by-fours just yet. --Danger (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per DGG. This Afd is a total waste of time. Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment There really is no substance in the article of merit at all. After removing everything that already belongs in another article, it really is nothing more than "this could mean things that concern this."--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Article has an inbalance of WP:OR and WP:NPOV. While there may be merit in the topic, I believe that this present expression is a suitable beginning. References serve more as examples to illustrate the POV being presented than as illustrating the topic. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment I would just like to note that since this discussion began there has been no real substantial attempts to either clarify what the article means or improve it, both on this page or in the article itself.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Because most don't have a problem with it. Dream Focus 19:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ermm, seriously? A lot of the arguments for keeping this article have been that it is weak now but can certainly be clarified in the future, yet I've seen no attempts to do so. Indeed, I'm still having trouble reading it and seeing it as anything more than an outline for an essay, let alone understanding the topic.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's not exactly a topic that most of us are capable of diving into. I mean, there are plenty of theoretical physics and pure math articles that aren't more than sketches, but I'm not complaining that you're not writing those. Read the Benjamin article linked (exactly the essay I thought of when I saw this; had a class that spent two weeks on it), then see if you feel like you can add something. I sure as hell don't, but I'm not going to tear down the house before someone with expertise comes along. --Danger (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, no, you misunderstood what I was saying. I was perfectly able to understand what the article said, but it gave no clear understanding of the term or its usage. I'm well aware that there are articles where I stand no chance of getting the point, but that is not what I meant in this case.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- You can perfectly understand something which gives no clear understanding? This seems contradictory. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Of course. I could talk for hours about, say, deforestation, for example, using only sentences which are clear and understandable, without really helping anyone understand what deforestation is or means.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Your comments here do indeed seem to have this paradoxical character. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well now, there's no need for that.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Please see WP:SAUCE. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, no, you misunderstood what I was saying. I was perfectly able to understand what the article said, but it gave no clear understanding of the term or its usage. I'm well aware that there are articles where I stand no chance of getting the point, but that is not what I meant in this case.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's not exactly a topic that most of us are capable of diving into. I mean, there are plenty of theoretical physics and pure math articles that aren't more than sketches, but I'm not complaining that you're not writing those. Read the Benjamin article linked (exactly the essay I thought of when I saw this; had a class that spent two weeks on it), then see if you feel like you can add something. I sure as hell don't, but I'm not going to tear down the house before someone with expertise comes along. --Danger (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ermm, seriously? A lot of the arguments for keeping this article have been that it is weak now but can certainly be clarified in the future, yet I've seen no attempts to do so. Indeed, I'm still having trouble reading it and seeing it as anything more than an outline for an essay, let alone understanding the topic.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The topic is highly notable as evidenced by the numerous sources which have been cited in this discussion. The article is a new one and it is our editing policy to develop such articles not to delete them. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment/Irony: The article has 415 (maybe less than brilliant) words. This (keenly argued) discussion has about 8,500. Indicative of something wrong with Wikipedia? --Kleinzach 09:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed. One reason that editors like to speak at length in discussions of this sort is that there is little risk of their words being deleted. And they seem free of the usual constraints of WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV as they may freely express their personal opinions in a self-indulgent way The discussion thus provides an outlet for creative expression despite our policy that Wikipedia is not a forum. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- A rich self-reference here is the question of the true nature of the topic and the extent to which contributions are true to it. My controversial addition of a source has been described as "fraud" much as a modern artist might be described by cynics as a fraud when he exhibits a pile of bricks as an artwork. When we create article about a topic, how do we determine the true nature of the topic, to which we should be authentic? Is a topic a Platonic form of crystalline perfection or is it a pragmatic construct which may be somewhat amorphous and plastic? Colonel Warden (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Fascinating questions! However in this case it is just a pile of half-translated, quarter-understood crap that nobody will ever bother to turn into an adequate article and will be quickly and quietly redirected somewhere after another AFD in two or more years time. Johnbod (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, however the 'Keep' editors do have an opportunity to prove you (and the rest of the 'Delete' party) wrong. Will they take that opportunity? --Kleinzach 01:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- No one seems to have done so, so far.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Several editors have improved the article in various small ways. More substantial work must wait upon completion of the AFD as it is not much fun performing in front of hecklers. See WP:INSPECTOR. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Wait, wait. "More substantial work must wait upon completion of the AFD"? Isn't one of the points of an AfD to give editors time to improve and save an article? And while I do understand your point about hecklers, the house metaphor is a bit off in this case. It's more like someone started building a house, and then after building half of the walls promised they'd eventually continue.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Note I removed the information that pertained to plagiarism or historically informed performances and linked to them in a hatnote. I believe more can probably removed and instead directed to provenance or authenticity in philosophy, but I don't feel comfortable making that edit myself. What's left seems to be largely more of an essay than an encyclopedia article. I've noticed that no other editor has followed through on efforts to substantially improve the article, simply trying to defend that "someone" will eventually fix it up.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:39, 1 February 2011 (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.
- 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 delete. Jayjg (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Huron County Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. Doesn't pass the general notability guideline for such articles written about libraries, nor does it go beyond any other run-of-the-mill libraries scattered around, and also called "Huron County Library". There is some information about the librarian "Miss A. Rose Aitken", but that would warrant an article about her, not the library itself. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as this is utterly unnotable. 06:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcsuper (talk • contribs)
- Delete not notable --Guerillero | My Talk 15:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Weak keep there is no clear guideline for libraries. I'm relatively exclusionist on local institutions, and I've often !voted delete on local libraries. I think a reasonable consensus would be that individual branches are certainly not notable, but county systems are, at least in larger counties, (this one is 60,000) on the same principle that school districts are. DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I would also say a weak keep on this. I personally think articles on county libraries are certainly no less notable than articles we have on local schools on wikipedia and more notable in my view... Google books does reveal 147 different sources mention this so adding sources is possible. I agree with DGG though that there really ought to be guidelines on this. Providing this article is expanded and sourced decently i'm content to keep it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- On the contrary, some of them might be about a different "Huron County Library". Like I said above, what distinguishes this Ontario, Canada one from the others? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per the user above. I think library systems being handled similar to school systems is a fair way to treat their notability. There are probably local sources describing their funding, and may be some controversies arising on a local level, or programs that they offer, that could help to to their notability.(only place to vote for elections, or maybe doubles as an important meeting place for many local instutions, etc).--AerobicFox (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- But the problem is there are no significant meeting places or votes for elections etc. held here that I could find. It is this specific institution that I'm referring to, not any other library. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Just saying that library systems should most definitely not be handled like school systems. The idea that all school systems are "inherently notable" is a fallacy that we should work on overcoming. The last thing we need is a declaration that all county libraries (and other local buildings) are de-facto notable. ThemFromSpace 23:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, that would be a headache--Guerillero | My Talk 00:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- I see no problem, unless we are suddenly running out of server space. Edison (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't see an analogy to schools. Library systems are not generally notable—funding is a tiny fraction of funding for education, and the impact on a municipality or county is relatively insignificant. The notion that everything that is goes through a public funding debate is somehow notable doesn't stand up—are we to have an article on the West Podunk Phase II Auxiliary Sewage Treatment Facility? Bongomatic 02:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, or Redirect or Merge to Huron County, Ontario. After all, the library system is part of the county government. Abductive (reasoning) 03:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Not just a library, but an entire library system that in itself should be worth of inclusion. --Oakshade (talk) 04:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. If there were any notability to this building at all, the article would consist of more than hours of operation and ___location. Not really an article, it's a phone book listing. Agent 86 (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This is not just an article about a building. In a county of 60,000, it is likely that multiple reliable and independent sources, even if local or regional, have had significant coverage, justifying a presumption of notability. A county library system article is a useful collective article to list the (presumably) nonnotable local libraries. Similarly, county school districts have gained "Keep" results in all recent AFDs, and serve as collective articles for all the (presumably) nonnotable elementary schools. Edison (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm. Sounds like it should probably be notable, but the sources don't seem to show it. One local news piece, one possibly non-independent bulletin... sorry, but have to go delete unless someone can find a bit more. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep/merge as I said before.. Could merge into Huron County, Ontario...♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
— Duplicate !vote: Dr. Blofeld (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.
- Delete No indication of notability, insufficient sources available to meet WP:GNG. This article fails WP:NOT as it reads like a directory listing. Including a list of the libraries into Huron County, Ontario and including the image there would be appropriate but there is no need to list details such as street addresses or opening hours.Polyamorph (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Several snippet view results from Google Book Search, but it is impossible from the snippets to see how extensive each hit is: [54], [55], :"There are twenty libraries belonging to the Huron County Library Association. Until this past fall our work has been only ... Librarian, Huron County Library Association, Gode- rich, Ontario, Canada. Our organization differs from most ...", "..The Huron County Library Distribution Truck. Each three months, this truck brings a fresh selection of books- to libraries in small communities throughout the county. The truck is arranged with shelves, holding 1.000 books. ...", "..Recorded development is confined mainly to the work of the Huron County Library, which operates an exhibition van, the first of its kind in the province, whose work has received great publicity through the showing of a film called 'The books drive on..'". Also, note that several classes of comparable subjects get kept automatically without providing multiple reliable and independent secondary sources with significant coverage, such as every school district. Edison (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for those but I don't personally see how the snippets demonstrate notability. I also personally don't think we should have articles on every school district, unless they can themselves also demonstrate notability. Just because wikipedia policy on the inclusion of articles on schools is messed up is no reason to keep a directory listing on very un-noteworthy local libraries.Polyamorph (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I can't find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Arguments pointing at de-facto notability do not fly with me-- every topic that has a stand alone article should have received at least some attention in the past. Our current practice of retaining articles about local buildings and organizations is too lax for my taste. If the library building itself can be shown to be historically notable, or if the library system can be shown to have had an historical impact on the community then I would be in favor of keeping the article. But "it exists" is not a reason to retain this. ThemFromSpace 17:29, 25 January 2011 (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.