Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R/art

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

R/art

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not have WP:SIGCOV. The only sources specifically covering it are related to a controversy in late 2022. A bunch of other sources are about art on Reddit in general but only fleetingly mention r/art as one (of very many) places the reader can find that. ― novov (t c) 03:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Internet. ― novov (t c) 03:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Reddit. Possibly merge the controversy section with AI art, though I'm not sure if it's notable enough to be worth mentioning there. On reconsidering, I'm changing my vote to a weak keep. There's not a lot of major coverage, but I think what's there is nontrivial enough to justify an article.

Revolutionary girl euclid (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, very well-known subreddit focus on art with 22 million members, if art on Reddit is to have an article at all this would be it. The controversy itself is worth keeping the page and not merging it elsewhere. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Reddit#Subreddits. This could set a precedent on individual subreddits having their own articles but I do not think it has enough standalone notability currently. - Indefensible (talk) 04:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment, many Reddit sub r/ are notable and a precedent should not be set for considered them for deletion or merging (or picking topic articles off one-by-one, as seems to come up on AfD too often). This one is one of the major r/, known to artists and art historians, and if it gives space to covering a controversy then that only adds to its sources and notability. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist but I'm seeing No Consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and spin off the AI art section into it's own article. It's easily the most notable thing about this community and would pass a notability check on it's own; the rest can exist within another article. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 22:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I just did a search for "r/art AI" and there were 9-10 high quality links on the first page alone. More than notable. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 22:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the AI art section is so notable then the entire article of this well-known community is notable. Your found sources add to the already adequate sourcing of the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2023 (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.