Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patafunctions

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. Evidence of notability has not been presented during this discussion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patafunctions

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

This is a very carefully written article with lots of references that seeks to prop up a single work by an artist. The problem is that the text is loaded with references to anything other than the work itself, which has very dubious notability as it is essentially a small run publication for an exhibtion. Article is a huge long essay essentially. Article creator has user name shockingly similar to Author of Patafunctions. With all the obfuscation goign on, like with COI. I suggest it is better ot blow this one out of the water and start over-- if needed. (the same may also be true of the gigantic Shaun Gladwell page. There seems to be abit of a campaign going on. ) HappyValleyEditor (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article about an illusion/publication (as part of an art exhibition), inspires us to question the rigid confines of notability criterion, such as WP:BKCRIT. Describing an experimental text which is also a publication and yet an illusion, it lies in the article space and incorporates influences as diverse as WP:COI and WP:OR. With not enough references to satisfy WP:GNG, it is a demonstration of an emotionless travel to deletion through the medium of AfD, and yet leaves the editor wondering whether to cite or not to cite the answer to life, the universe, and everything. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Smokes, this is the most articulate delete vote I've ever seen. I bow down to your awesomeness. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's hilarious. I read it several times just for the sheer enjoyment. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was going to write something about the exegesis of cultural hermeneutics in existential artistico-metaphysical dialogue, but decided simply to say that a load of nonsense wrapped up with a few primary sources and a link to a dead artist's work doesn't add up to notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but NPOV with criticism from supporters and detractors: Judd's article is for: https://www.artlink.com.au/articles/4334/shaun-gladwell-the-lacrima-chair-collection2B/ Whereas MacDonald is totally against http://johnmcdonald.net.au/2015/shaun-gladwell/ Zenopharmakon (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CommentZenopharmakon: with respect, the two refs you mention are not very strong. The first is one sentence, and the second is two sentences and it does not even mention "Patafunctions" directly, just obliquely. The second is very fine writing that would fit very nicely into the main article. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HappyValleyEditor, I'm all for inclusion of the John McDonald criticism within the article itself. McDonald is a very powerful voice in Australian art criticism and seems to enjoy critically engaging/demolishing Gladwell. McDonald's comments also intended to be included in Gladwell's bio under a "criticisms" section. However, I'm no longer editing the page(s) before working out COI issues. Gladderz (talk) 23:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article features the clearest description of this book/artwork but cannot be used due to its Author's COI and clearly placed disclosure statement at the top of the article. Kit Messham-Muir is the self appointed 'official' Gladwell biographer/interlocuter/collaborator. http://theconversation.com/shaun-gladwell-is-returning-to-sydney-and-may-not-shed-tears-37348 Other forums are debating the books content rather than seeing it as an artwork etc. Gladderz (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's too soon to suggest a solidly notable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 19:50, 1 May 2016 (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.