Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alec Monopoly

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Monopoly

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

This artist fails both WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE for a lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources, and his work has not garnered its own significant coverage or presented any kind of significant concept, theory, or technique. Available information seems almost entirely from WP:BLPSPS and interview statements where the subject talks about himself with no editorial oversight from the publisher as to claims. Third party coverage should be readily available if this subject truly rises to CREATIVE levels, or even GNG, but there's precious little. JFHJr (㊟) 23:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i dont know a lot how to write in wiki but i think that this article should not be removed because alec is a great and talented artist well known in the states and even in africa . Thanks La galerie 38 in Casablanca — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.251.46.164 (talk) 15:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- interesting person but the sources are just not there to establish notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article should NOT be removed. ALEC MONOPOLY is a well known and well covered Street Artist with an international recognition and press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.63.106 (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This isn't the strongest case of notability, but there are a few good refs (Huffington Post, etc) mixed in with other decent links available. He is more than a flash in the pan, and the coverage he has gotten is much more than brief mentions. It is borderline, but I think it is on the right side of the border. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – FWIW, the Huffington Post is a blog and I wouldn't consider it reliable, especially for sourcing content on living persons. Could you provide some URLs that are examples of substantial, in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources? Simply asserting they're out there doesn't help much. JFHJr (㊟) 22:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times also has a blog, and so do many mainstream publications. They are generally considered reliable sources if the piece is written by someone notable, such as John Wellington Ennis, who wrote this piece. This is not the same as a self-published blog. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So no examples of multiple WP:RS giving substantial coverage? I went ahead and removed another blog squarely outside WP:RS territory. FYI reliability isn't about the author at all. It's about the editorial practices. Contrary to your assertion, being written by someone notable doesn't mean it's reliable. So Huffington isn't good for basing notability. It's just a blog. JFHJr (㊟) 16:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEWSBLOG says otherwise. If some random person who wasn't considered at least somewhat of an expert (say you or I) wrote an article on a Huffington's blog, then no it wouldn't be suitable to use as a reliable source. This isn't the same thing. John Wellington Ennis would easily qualify per WP:NEWSBLOG These may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals but should be used with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact checking process. It is fine to disagree about the quality of the author, but to say that all blogs, even Huffington Posts', New York Times, LA Times, etc. are automatically disqualified is to misread the guidelines. If the source of the blog is a reliable source, AND the author of the article is considered reliable, then the article can be used as a reliable source. The author is professional, the media content owner is reliable, the only difference is that it is on the 'blog' portion of their website. Most blog articles ARE useless for sourcing, I agree, but this is one of the exceptions that is specifically laid out in the guidelines because so many large news sources are adding blogs. And the comments TO the article are never allowed to be used for references. The guidelines are very narrow on this, but are satisfied here. If there is still a doubt, I would suggest getting another opinion from someone else. I've already seen this argument several times, and even been on the wrong side of it once. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 15:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Coverage in independent, reliable sources: [1], [2], [3], and yes, HuffPo is generally considered reliable. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 17:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.