Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Art

520:: Please note that, transgressive though they were, the Surrealists played "exquisite corpses" using their own notepaper. They did not try to scrawl it the margins of a library book. This is the problem. Nobody objects to a Wiki based artwork. The problem is that it can't be inserted into Knowledge because Knowledge is not just a Wiki. It is an encyclopedia. It is no more appropriate to add non-encyclopaedic content here than it is to write stuff in library books. I have refrained from using the term "vandalism" because I think this is all a big misunderstanding rather than a deliberate attempt to damage Knowledge. None the less, that is the effect it is having. -- 537:: I would very much beg to differ on the point of the Surrealists. Dali would lay in traffic, Artaud organized a riot aginst Dulac's first screening of the Clergyman and the Seashell. If the Surrealists would have found it "appropriate" for the message, I am absolutely sure they would have done Corpses in the library. The way I see it, if it gets pulled, it will become by definition a case for reinsertion as an "event" in New Media art history. However, I know the project is being watched by a number of curators with great interest.-- 495:

Turbulence.org, and it will be mentioned as part of my talk on new art practices at a guest lecture at Denver University on 2/16/09, and I have already written on it on my critical blog in London. Therefore, the reference is to the emergence of the concept, which now exists outside Knowledge, and is paradoxical but not solipsistic. I think that the person suggesting the idea of letting the idea grow is well-reasoned, and a time for review (say, 90 days) could be set for re-evaluation.--

1526:- I think you feel too strongly about this and should cool off. With all due respect, Daniel, you may be projecting here. Please take your own advice. There is a very rational and relevant discussion happening here, and you appear to be trying to fast-track it into a deletion, perhaps out of unwillingness to consider differing points of view. Again, no offense, but you have been quite dismissive of the excellent points being raised here. 2389:, if it is, as has been suggested, an attempt to generate controversy to justify the experiment's own existence, then I don't see how the encyclopedia will benefit from continuing to maintain it. I retain my original opinion that this project is an attempt to use the resources of Knowledge for purposes separate from the intended purpose of building an encyclopedia, and if that's the case, then Knowledge should not maintain it anywhere. 31: 1522:- this may be the closest call. While I understand why this is an issue, I don't think the artists are disrupting wikipedia to create a point. Their purpose is to create an artwork. The point it makes is secondary and the disruption is a side effect. Again, there's plenty of room on wikipedia for this. It's of interest. The more you make a stink about it, the stronger the case becomes. Let it go. 2291:

Knowledge, at one point some fellow thought our deletion logs could be used for art. He created a website & tool to gather the log info for his project. This project may still be active somewhere, although I suspect we've taken the joy out of it now that most of our deletions contain policy related summaries rather than the first sentence or two from the article. --

1467:: Although there are a lot of people who want this article kept I believe that everybody above who has evaluated the matter within the scope of the actual policies has decided to delete it. It is also clear that the article is disruptive and that the deletion discussion has played out and is becoming repetitive and branching off into general discussion. I propose that we 947:. I have not heard any reason articulated by any of the defenders of this newly created article as to why an exception should be made in this instance. Therefore I see no reason to make an exception for its failure to meet basic requirements for Knowledge articles. In the absence of any reasons given for overriding Knowledge basic policy, I see no reason not to delete 1303:: I think we have an unusual situation here in two ways. First up there are a lot of people here who do not normally "do" AfDs. Secondly, there is a real, and I believe honest, failure of those who want to keep the article to understand the fundamental nature of the problem, or of Knowledge itself. I don't want to be patronising but lets quickly recap Knowledge 101: 2127:

fated for swift deletion, I think that comments by people like Frock, the new edits, and the development of the article over such a short amount of time shows its potential. In addition, I move that before deletion, we really should get someone in who's edited the New Media/Tech Art pages. If they're here, please chime in, and state you've been editing there.--

1344:: The Knowledge Art page satisfies every one of those requirements. I also don't wish to be patronizing, but I believe there is a real, honest failure of those who want to delete the article to understand the fundamental nature of the problem-- which is how narrowly you choose to define knowledge, art, verifiability, original research, and disruption. 1490:- Let's not make it wikipedia editors jobs to determine what is art. The 3 authors are established artists and they have said it is art - that's really the end of the story. However, after that it is up to the rest of us to determine if it is good and/or worthwhile art. For that, let's use the 5 pillars of wikipedia. 2003: 1894:

One of the reasons I feel this discussion is viable is that it is one of those either/or situations. I dont see how an administrator can call for the AfD to be closed and the page deleted within the first couple hours of its creation. This is way too soon in the process for this to happen unless the

1850:

If it has happened before, it's also been deleted before, rather quickly. Generally articles like this are speedy-deleted without the need for discussion, but in this case someone nominated it for discussion instead, so here we are. It'll still get deleted in the end, as it violates pretty much every

1211:

I think it should be obvious that an article is an attempt to objectively capture the facts about a subject and that art is a subjective attempt to say something original about something. Given that Knowledge is for objectivity and against original research it really is an incredibility inappropriate

494:

This sort of artwork already has strong precedents in history - the Surrealists' Exquisite Corpse, Debord's idea of Situationist detournement, and although I am not part of this collective, I fully intend to include it as part of my chapter for the upcoming book of distributed writing commissioned by

2273:

That's a very fair-minded proposal, but I don't think it's a good idea. It would mean going through another deletion discussion starting a week from now, fanning the flames of controversy just after they've died down. As suggested earlier in this discussion, if reliable source coverage develops to

1273:

I don't think it is productive to discuss this. I now regret giving it an opening as it isn't relevant here. (This is what I get for trying to be helpful.) Some people reject the concept of encyclopaedic knowledge. That is their choice but I don't see any reason for a person of that view to hang out

1226:

With all due respect, both the hard sciences, the humanities, and journalism have fully rejected the idea of objectivity. There is no such thing, and Knowledge is a perfect example of a perfectly subjective (if collaborative) encyclopedia. Similarly, originality has been rejected by art. There is

1119:

I beg to differ. My contribution was meant to raise awareness of the larger context in which a decision to delete or keep the article is taking place. Having read the comments above, I saw they did not reflect an understanding of what's at stake in a decision to delete or keep the article. Either

1102:

article is what would be discussed and debated in the article itself, if it existed. That might be an interesting discussion; then again that might not be an interesting discussion. But I don't think we have to assume the article exists in order to discuss whether or not to delete it. I think we can

2465:

Your friends told you so? That's your argument? Look: No one's asking you to take my word for it. Since Jimmy Wales on a Facebook group for fans of the page we're considering for deletion has no bearing whatsoever on said deletion, there's no way I could possibly care less. I told you as much on my

2126:

As I've seen the new "Context" section put forth, and not by any of the artists, I think the article is MUCH more solid, is more grounded in external art historical references, and all around more grounded as an "article" per se. There the piece was truly solipsistic in the beginning, and probably

768:

So, if you are right, that means that they probably regard this AfD as the real artwork? Oh joy. I think you are right about the copyright/trademark on "Knowledge" but I was assuming (hoping) that it was a legitimate misunderstanding between Wiki (which anybody can use) and Knowledge. I really hope

689:

first before it could ever be written about in order for it to be notable enough to be mentioned here. Yes, an interesting paradox, but that's not our problem. We can only go by Knowledge policies and guidelines, and it's pretty clear that this needs to be deleted. But here's an idea: the fact that

215:

This is an attempt to use Knowledge as an "art platform". It is not encyclopaedic. It can never be encyclopaedic by its very nature. It can't be referenced to anything other than itself because it is an original work based on Knowledge. These guys need to get themselves their own Wiki and host this

2093:

This "article" seems designed to violate as many of our basic policies as possible. Linking every word? Signatures in article space? Ridiculous amounts of self-referencing? An article that is about nothing but itself? It is absurd. That's art for you; some people will always find it absurd.

1788:

our canvas; as it states in its byline, "anyone can edit"; and it has been promoted on this premise - that it is the collective work of innumerable individuals. This is a valuable article if just because of the interesting discussion on this page, but also because it is interrogating the nature of

1595:

Dronthego -- I said nothing about whether or not edits should be frozen. The article's existence is dependent upon the article's existence. That is the premise upon which the initiating editors created this article. Many articles are deleted, in the visual arts, for failing to meet basic Knowledge

1039:

Knowledge function. Those who care most about Knowledge's mission would probably agree that Knowledge already is a collaborative art form. If you feel that Knowledge is a beautiful thing, then at some level (whether or not you admit it) you consider Knowledge an art form, with its own codes and

838:

bio over this unless you have a beef with him. Did you even read the bio or the prior deletion debates? I've cited his interviews to help improve visual art bios on wikipedia because consensus has been that he is notable twice. Should I stop? Should we flag every writer and art critic if we don't

383:

First up, the fact that the people write their own articles is a big problem because they lack objectivity. Secondly, you can't have a circular chain of references. You can't reference Knowledge from a non-RS blog that itself references Knowledge. By that logic, any information replicated on two

1445:

I am disappointed to read this after my heartfelt plea on your talk page. Notability is not something that you can simply declare because you are a prof. We ask for reliable sources and you give us blogs. We complain of original research and you seek so remedy it by soliciting yet more original

1134:

I disagree. The only thing at stake is Knowledge's integrity as an encyclopaedia. The rest is stuff that we simply take no view on. If something is deleted it is because it is inappropriate to Knowledge. It is not a comment on its wider worth. Nothing will be lost if the article is deleted. The

861:

the flags on the authors of the Knowledge Art article are unwarranted - Kildall is a gradute of the Art Institute of Chicago, and well exhibited, I am not familiar with Biran per se, and I wrote a term paper in part about Nathaniel's work during my MFA studies on African Computer Art in the mid

2423:

Oh no no no sir, I did not say that at all. I said that the person who claims to be Jimmy Wales that you've got in your group is in fact not the real Jimmy Wales. You continue to misunderstand me. I gave you this link to the actual Jimmy wales page. This is not the same member you have in your

2823:, the only verifiability or notability here is self-referential, and that's the only way this article can and will be. This definitely shouldn't be namespace moved either, it belongs in a different Wiki altogether; this one is a collaborative encyclopedia, not a collaborative art project. -- 2408:

has his profile hidden on a Facebook site and I showed the link to make sure people knew this was an incorrect statement and even Equazcion said it was a mistake on his discussion page but he didn't include that on here bringing into question the neutrality that is supposed to be the best of

2290:

Based on this theory, every page on WIkipedia is art. In terms of an article, I think deletion is in order here, however this might be an interesting concept to explore in project space, that's usually where we do our navel-gazing. FWIW: This isn't the first time someone has made art out of

1415:

First, notability - as a media studies and New Media Art professor & curator, I find this missive "Highly" notable, for obvious reasons. This is a great project, either way it's resolved. It has also been picked up for discussion in at least one scholarly publication in this first day.

1120:

decision would say a great deal about both Knowledge and whether/how it distinguishes between collaborative knowledge and collaborative art, at a time when that boundary is quickly evaporating (see MIT's Artist-In-Residence program). Awareness of these matters is essential to the discussion.

1610:

We generally don't "freeze" a deletion discussion just cause it gets heated. For all the steamed-up people here there are many more cool-headed Wikipedians who can carry on constructive discussion. Anyone who feels like it may continue bickering. The outcome will still be determined fairly.

839:

agree with something they write about? I read the Sherwin article about this and it does not look like he was a part of it aside from posting about it after one of the two contacted him. The article clearly says that it is a project by Stern and Kildall. So why did you flag the Sherwin bio?

417::"the fact that the people write their own articles is a big problem because they lack objectivity" It seems to me that everyone writes their own articles on Knowledge and there is no such thing as objectivity in Knowledge. That is the whole point-- it is inherently subjective. 2239:

Just my reading of things, it looks like the purpose is to provoke a reaction of some type so a student or researcher can have something to report. Whether the resulting controversy or the academic results will rise to the level of notability or not remains to be seen. See

694:

and subsequently deleted could possibly generate enough third-party coverage to make the initial project notable enough to be included (at least as part of the artists' articles). But until then, it cannot stay. It's not encyclopedic as an entirely self-referential article.

2409:

Knowledge. I also know about some overreaching into past edits that seem very underhanded. Lets be bigger than that on here. Integrity is Knowledge's best policy. Andy Warhol, himself said art is anything you can get away with. That said, lets do the right thing here.

1149:

Yes, but according to whose definition of Knowledge's "integrity as an encyclopedia"? Yours? Forgive me, but you don't seem receptive to the range of opinions in this discussion arguing quite cogently for a more open definition. According to the Knowledge entry, an

2807:

and quite a few others. The self-referential citations alone point to how non-notable this concept is. Simply put, if this is a concept for collaboration people wish to try, put it in the Knowledge namespace. It flat out does not belong in article space.

1982: 1425:

Don't Garfinkel the WIKI (DGtW); That's a bit gray, again on terms as to whether the site or the entry is the "art". In my opinion, the decision will likely be much clearer after a period of time (as stated before, 90 days, and probably minimum of

365:) 04:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC) I think this is something that is imporatnt. Why cant Knowledge be a form of art too. I don't understand how someone who edits Knowledge would not want their edit or "performative utterances" to be considered art. 1736:

has a hidden profile on that Facebook Knowledge Art fan page undermines your neutrality and this in fact could sway someone from voting to keep rather than delete this page. Its the swaying part not just misstating facts that bothers me.

228:). It seems that they have accounts and edit these themselves. They may, or may not, be significantly notable outside of their own circle and may, or may not, have inflated their importance in their articles. I think it needs looking at. 335:

Whether these people do simple edits on their own pages in no way invalidates what they have said here. If something is true then it should stay in the article regardless. Did you know this article is already referenced at The Whole 9

2403:

I added this article today at around 3:15. I felt that it would absolutely pass the test and remain here on Knowledge. Already though several of the "Delete people" have gone and changed edits on Kildall's page here and one said that

607:

and Knowledge. I am not sure which site they are proposing to be the actual art work. If it is the Knowledge article then all I have said above is correct. If it is their own Wiki then the circularity is broken and the article in not

2326:

Could you elaborate on the rationale of moving to project space? I'm under the impression that project space is for projects that directly involve improving the encyclopedia or its accessibility. What does this do in that capacity?

1494:- has been established. It's been written about in several places, there is a RL lecture discussing it, a curator has vouched for it. Compared with many other wikipedia articles which have no question of notability (for example, 2929:. 'Knowledge Art' as such does not exist in any way that merits an article. And serious efforts toward building a collaborative media restoration undertaking would only be undermined by the existence of such a page as this. 2450:

My five mutual friends of his say it is him. Why should they tell me something that is an untruth. Most dont even know about this Knowledge Art page or the AfD here or I should just take your word without a basis to stand on?

1040:

conventions. This artwork can only exist as a Knowledge page that refers to itself. Therefore, deleting would not only send the message "this is not Knowledge"; it would also be saying "this is not art." comment added by

1983:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=75066111912#/s.php?k=100000004&id=75066111912&gr=2&a=7&sid=aba34a0c6e6c8af42a59b0872ccf1c5f&n=-1&o=4&s=10&hash=3684301cd6bdb416a7799d9c83d2136a&sf=p

1093:

No, I haven't addressed your points. The subject of the discussion is whether to delete the article or not, not whether or not you feel that Knowledge should have an article containing the qualities that you feel the

1418:

Secondly, verifiability - there external resources on the issue, and it is alrady in discussion in the greater community. I think the issue might be whether the site or the entry is the art, which has not been

880:

Well, right - "legitimate" is not the proper word. However, all three have substantial records, and if it takes an exxternal scholar to go over their records, then we can set that up.User:Patlichty|Patlichty]]

994:

be preserved for an instructive, self-referential, and ever-changing living example of what an art object can be in the 21st Century? Should this page be judged invalid only because it refers to itself? The

2185:

the February 14, 2009 art experiment. Blogs and mailing lists are generally insufficient to establish notability, but if an art journal, newspaper, or a WP:RS art magazine writes about this, then an article

603:, which has the same content as the Knowledge article we are discussing here. I am not sure how the two are meant to relate to eachother but it may be that they are confused as to the difference between a 1421:

Reliable Sources: there are two blogs, an installation, and a developing discussion on a 10,000 person listserv (Rhizome). I'm sure that this will be undeniably resolved to Knowledge standards soon.

2921:. As the contributor of ten percent of Knowledge's featured pictures and twenty percent of its featured sounds, assuring fellow editors that this can be safely deleted. Most of the citations fail 1985:

This Jimmy Wales on Facebook fan page for Knowledge Art is the founder of Knowledge. He is not hidden here Facebook only puts up random pics of people who join a page you can search all to see

1358:

You are discussing what would be the content of the article if it existed. This discussion concerns itself with whether or not such an article should exist. There is a distinction, in my opinion.

1514:- The authors created the page. The content of the page is the work of art itself, and it describes itself. Again, this doesn't appear to be an issue because Verifiablity isn't in question. 443:

unencyclopaedic. I don't think it was necessarily created in bad faith but it is an abuse of Knowledge to seek to use it as an art platform and it undermines Knowledge as an encyclopaedia. --

2842:

I'd be very against a namespace change as well. Knowledge space is for collaborations that aim to improve the encyclopedia, not for just any collaboration a group of people want to try.

468:

topic. Created very recently. Also a totally confused concept - a collaborative art project - fine. But trying to do it on one Knowledge page - you must be joking mate! We also have an

1563:. So far, all we've heard is point of view pushing, in support of this article. That is acceptable in a work of art (maybe); it is far less acceptable in a Knowledge article, ideally. 2743:: If the article IS the artwork, then it is a primary source and furthermore pretty much cannot have an NPOV by definition. Knowledge is a tertiary source, and we must maintain NPOV. 2174: 1956:

Yeah, notice that the "Jimmy Wales" who joined that group has his profile hidden. Do a search and you'll find the one without the hidden profile, showing nine hundred something fans.

1423:

No Original Research: This might be the weakest leg in that much of it was written by the progenitors, but if needed, objective scholars can be asked to render their thoughts as well.

1659:

has gotten heated? I don't see what that would accomplish. Even if that article were frozen, this discussion would still close at the same time, generally 5 days after it started.

1259:

Yes: Andy Warhol, Marcel Duchamp, Roy Lichtenstein, Michelangelo, Leonardo daVinci. It's all copying and pasting. The only difference is that now artists are self-aware about it.

2107:

Where exactly do you draw the line between graffiti and a Knowledge entry? How is Knowledge not a publicly moderated graffiti forum with conventions and guidelines for graffiti?

1803:

Yes, anyone can edit. No guarantee that your edit will stick, though. All edits can also be reversed and deleted. Goes both ways, you see. So if you want to say Knowledge is your

1902:

just joined this Facebook page. Will this added bit of information help keep this article? This is what I question here. This should in no way be EGO driven. It is what it is.

2702:

lol. He has certainly learned his lesson. Oh, well, I don't think that there is much problem with leaving this open until the time limit. Just don't pay them much attention. --

2274:

justify an article on this subject, an administrator can then offer the page creator access to the deleted versions of the article for recreation of an encyclopedic article.

1191:

for collaborative art projects. Previous discussions about sourcing are beside the point, because this is an art project, and art projects are not allowed in article space.

2658:, not notable, no reliable sources except one blog, trying to use wikipedia for something other than writing an encyclopedia.... why are we even having this discussion? -- 1135:

authors can request a copy to be emailed to them and they can put it up again on another site. This is not censorship. This is not against art. It is just housekeeping. --

787:

I had not thought of it that way, but you may be right about this AFD being the "artwork". A breaching experiment does attempt to measure reactions to the experiment. •••

2834: 208: 2541: 2501: 2460: 2418: 2041: 2773: 2729: 1221: 1200: 800: 778: 759: 393: 374: 349: 713: 409: 324: 203: 2711: 2398: 2158: 1998: 1951: 1911: 1746: 1480: 1336: 902: 621: 529: 289: 263: 2752: 2615: 2597: 1212:

place to seek to make art. I see the attraction of the Wiki engine for collaborative art, but they can (and indeed already have) start their own Wiki for that. --

2667: 2283: 2266: 2234: 1455: 730: 546: 500: 2633: 2190:

this experiment is acceptable. Inform user he has a fixed time limit to save his work then delete it as inappropriate use of user space. I recommend a week.

2141:

None of the new material added to the article is germane to this discussion, because none of it addresses the two reasons for deletion: none of it demonstrates

1283: 960: 886: 848: 818: 589: 504: 485: 2302: 2136: 1554: 1392: 2913: 2879: 2815: 2716:

Ah, Equazcion, that's the best comment yet in this discussion! I got a huge laugh out of that one! Daniel, are you ruing the day you made this nomination? •••

2377: 2102: 1646: 1605: 1590: 1572: 1353: 1236: 1163: 1144: 1053: 871: 809:

Yes, this discussion is the most interesting part of the work by far. And it has a built-in narrative structure to it-- how will it turn out? Kept or Deleted?

671: 646: 577: 452: 426: 2241: 2212: 40: 2935: 1535: 1227:

no such thing. It's all just different forms of appropriation. So it seems to me that Knowledge is a perfect place to expose the current state of affairs.

2116: 1798: 1367: 1268: 1254: 1129: 1112: 1088: 1071: 612:

unencyclopaedic. In that case I would like to add the following alternative reasons to delete the article: Lack of notability and lack of RS references. --

2217:

Interesting thought. Perhaps that is the whole point of this page, to provoke a such a discussion of this article, on- and off-Wiki, that the controversy

1845: 1706:- Take your pick. How about simply not notable, vandalism, hoax, etc? Whether it can be considered art or not is irrelevant. Knowledge ain't your canvas. 2321: 1596:

requirements. Do you think all articles in the visual arts that have been deleted in, say, the past 90 days should be reinstated, or just this article?

1307:

explains what Knowledge is, isn't and also how it is run. Almost everything of importance is linked from there but I would specifically like to mention

1274:

on an encyclopaedia. This sort of stuff gets discussed interminably by philosophers. We are not going to get anywhere with it here. Lets let it drop. --

1079:: Thanks, but isn't that what everyone is doing here? Talking about what ought to exist on Knowledge? You haven't addressed a single one of my points. 970:

The Knowledge Art page is something that explains art, explores art, and is art all at the same time. Deleting this page would be a statement that the

300: 1380: 2128: 1429: 863: 538: 248: 117: 1789:

user-generated content, and the ability of artists to transform even the most pedestrian platform into something that comments and provokes.

1510:- the page exists and we've all seen it. No one has questioned whether or not it is being discussed on other sites or at academic lectures. 237: 662:. That said, I think you are almost certainly right. I just wanted to be fair to them and to everybody here by giving the whole picture. -- 2385:: I don't think it's a good idea to move this project to user space or any other space. If this art project is, as has been suggested, a 2310:

or if not, user space, and then if the sources are specific and substantial enough, consider a shorter article about this in mainspace. .

1836:

Has an art project like his happened on Knowledge before? Did Stern and Kidall break new ground or were they inspired by past "projects"?

1437: 1035:) in the 21st Century. This page shows how a Knowledge page can go beyond simply existing as a Knowledge page, while retaining its basic 274: 2953: 2046:

Yes I did, I was fixing formatting issues and trying to gussy up the page. You're welcome to change it back, but do keep in mind that

1577:

Are you going to explain why you don't think edits should be frozen and why there's shouldn't be a cool off period for this article?

862:

2000's. These are legitimate people, and their pages are justified, and only justifiable criticism maybe citations or formatting.--

742:. As a side note, that website, wikipediaart.org, is most likely infringing on the Wikimedia Foundation's copyright on the name 2181:. If sufficient reliable sources exist and it meets notability requirements, allow creation of a new page under the same name 1916:

And just how many "Jimmy Wales'" are there on Facebook? Besides which, no, that wouldn't have any effect on the decision here.

435:

Please read the article carefully and see that it can't possibly improve to become a valid Knowledge article. It is an article

721:

For whatever reason, I think this is a viable vehicle for Knowledge. Performative utterances actually has a nice ring to it.

1003:. It enacts and exposes Knowledge's own strengths, weaknesses, potential, and limits as a system of understanding and as a 2725: 2230: 1895:

person who put it up for deletion is afraid that those of us who support the article will ultimately see the page remain.

796: 755: 2985: 496: 175: 170: 1388: 179: 2856: 2690: 2560: 2520: 2480: 2438: 2341: 2064: 2020: 1970: 1930: 1865: 1821: 1765: 1720: 1673: 1625: 134: 100: 17: 1986: 2966:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

2907: 1372:

I'm in favor of the idea and rationale of Knowledge Art. I vote YES for the continuation of the project. -mjm

1058:

The above is a wonderful commentary, but Knowledge is not your web page to wax eloquently about what you think

481: 405:

I'm for giving this article time to improve. It's an interesting concept, though it needs better sourcing. --

162: 64:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

633:

the page at wikipediaart.org is not a wiki - it's just an advert or pointer to this one. It's clear that it's

2829: 2673: 2256: 2202: 2466:

talk page but you asked me to continue anyway, and I did. I'm sorry if you're unsatisfied with the outcome.

2098:

a repository or venue for art experiments. We eliminate graffiti when we find it, and that's all this is.

1098:

article might be capable of containing. Ostensibly the points and the subject matter of your defense of the

1049: 384:

different websites and referencing eachother would be gospel truth. Referencing does not work like that. --

184: 216:

there. It also seems to be part of a walled garden of suspicious articles about the artists themselves (

2903: 2364:). As an article, it fails the notability test. If anyone wants to write a well-sourced article about 196: 2967: 2260: 2206: 1410:: There are several questions here - One is the letter of the law, which is not always enforced here. 65: 46: 2824: 1886:

of course. Doesn't even pass the "amusing hoax" test. - DavidWBrooks 02:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

2721: 2611: 2537: 2497: 2456: 2414: 2394: 2279: 2226: 2154: 2037: 1994: 1907: 1742: 1196: 792: 751: 370: 362: 345: 340:

just today. I feel that your idea that it can only reference itself is unfounded at this point. :

1011:. The page is also a self-aware example of the strengths, weaknesses, potential, and limits of 2769: 2748: 1304: 703: 406: 314: 357:(Who changed my shouted keep?) You cannot do that once I sign it. This is against Wiki policy. 58:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

2707: 2663: 1476: 1451: 1332: 1279: 1217: 1140: 898: 774: 667: 617: 525: 448: 389: 285: 259: 233: 149: 1495: 192: 2386: 2169: 1384: 1376: 739: 8: 2849: 2683: 2553: 2513: 2473: 2431: 2334: 2297: 2132: 2057: 2013: 1963: 1947: 1923: 1898:

On Facebook there is a fan page for this article "Knowledge Art" and the founder himself

1858: 1814: 1758: 1713: 1666: 1642: 1618: 1586: 1550: 1433: 1032: 882: 867: 726: 542: 508: 127: 93: 2941:

Speedily deleted. No indication that the content may meet our criteria for inclusion. —

2672:

Because the nominator accidentally chose AfD instead of CSD, a decision for which he is

2546:

This is a matter of opinion, not fact. I've stated my opinion, and you've stated yours.

188: 2899: 2876: 2812: 2717: 2607: 2593: 2533: 2493: 2452: 2410: 2390: 2373: 2275: 2222: 2150: 2149:, and none of it changes the fact that art projects are not allowed in article space. 2033: 1990: 1903: 1841: 1738: 1601: 1568: 1363: 1250: 1208:: What exactly distinguishes a collaborative art project from a collaborative article? 1192: 1108: 1067: 956: 844: 788: 747: 477: 366: 358: 341: 166: 738:

This does not make any sense: it is an article about itself. I think the article is a

585:. Out of scope as a project, completely lacking in evident notability as a concept. 2891:

as non-notable, self-referential mess. Tried by others, and deleted. Kill kill kill.

2792: 2765: 2744: 2655: 2252: 2198: 1703: 1560: 1188: 696: 307: 2948: 2703: 2659: 2629: 2112: 1531: 1523: 1472: 1447: 1349: 1328: 1275: 1264: 1232: 1213: 1159: 1136: 1125: 1084: 1045: 894: 814: 770: 663: 642: 613: 573: 521: 465: 444: 422: 385: 281: 255: 229: 2506:

I care about the deletion discussion. I don't care about your facebook argument.

2047: 1794: 1519: 1324: 834:

This does not fit Knowledge. DanielRigal, I don't understand why you flagged the

769:

that this does not turn out to have been a bad faith exercise from the outset. --

221: 77: 2844: 2678: 2548: 2508: 2468: 2426: 2329: 2292: 2052: 2008: 1958: 1943: 1918: 1853: 1809: 1753: 1708: 1661: 1638: 1613: 1582: 1546: 983: 975: 722: 122: 88: 337: 2979: 2926: 2894: 2873: 2809: 2796: 2788: 2589: 2369: 2361: 2317: 2099: 2095: 1837: 1597: 1578: 1564: 1515: 1359: 1320: 1246: 1104: 1099: 1095: 1063: 1016: 1012: 1004: 996: 987: 979: 952: 948: 932: 924: 912: 840: 835: 586: 568:, not a web-host for this sort of project. Find some other Wiki to do it on. 565: 473: 469: 225: 217: 158: 150: 113: 1987:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=75066111912#/group.php?gid=75066111912

1637:

Fair enough, but I didn't mean this discussion page, I mean the article. --

2922: 2784: 2651: 2532:

Then lets only state facts on this AfD since you say you do care about it.

2365: 2245: 2191: 2142: 1511: 1316: 1151: 1028: 1024: 1000: 991: 893:

That has nothing to do with this AfD. I have replied on your talk page. --

2942: 2930: 2804: 2800: 2625: 2603: 2585: 2405: 2221:

becomes notable. Authors, are you reading this? Is that your purpose? •••

2108: 1899: 1807:

canvas, until someone notices what you did, then sure, it's your canvas.

1733: 1527: 1507: 1491: 1345: 1312: 1308: 1260: 1228: 1155: 1121: 1080: 1041: 1036: 944: 940: 920: 916: 810: 638: 569: 418: 83: 1790: 1503: 936: 2621: 982:

has no place in Knowledge, except on the tired, lifeless, and opaque

923:. So far I have heard no reason why an exception should be made for 2312: 971: 999:

page is a self-aware example of Knowledge's mission of collective

990:

pages. Why shouldn't a tiny corner of Knowledge-brand collective

599:: OK. Now I am really confused. They have a Wiki of their own at: 928: 2960:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

1154:

is "a comprehensive written compendium that holds information."

1008: 685:

This could never be properly sourced, as it could only exist

939:

are deleted due to failure to meet minimum requirements for

1499: 659: 604: 600: 1942:

I searched on facebook and found just one Jimmy Wales. --

1504:

manufacturers of Dungeons and Dragons miniature figurines

1020: 658:: Sorry. I got their link wrong. They do have a Wiki at: 2032:

Equazcion you changed my KEEP to Keep after I signed it.

1989:

Misinformation on a AfD page should not be tolerated.

2368:

as applied to wikis, be my guest, but this isn't it.

2242:

Knowledge:Knowledge is not for things made up one day

1751:

I've responded to this allegation extensively below.

2006:. Notice the difference from the group member list. 1506:) I'd say this met the established standard easily. 2492:

If you could care less why are you even on here????

1518:- none is necessary. We know all we need to know. 2872:Touche. I doubt it would survive an MfD either. 68:). No further edits should be made to this page. 2977: 2970:). No further edits should be made to this page. 1496:minor fictional characters from television shows 301:list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions 2620:I think you mean Andy Warhol the indisputably 1520:Do not disrupt Knowledge to illustrate a point 1325:do not disrupt Knowledge to illustrate a point 118:Knowledge:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 15 1019:has demonstrated that the boundaries between 249:list of Internet-related deletion discussions 1559:I think it is in violation of the spirit of 560:- an interesting concept, but not suitable 338:http://thewhole9.com/blogs/applestooranges/ 116:was requested regarding this decision. See 1446:research. I would have expected better. -- 2360:- this is not what Knowledge is for (see 1241:Do you have a source for the notion that 275:list of Arts-related deletion discussions 299:: This debate has been included in the 273:: This debate has been included in the 247:: This debate has been included in the 1581:What harm comes from waiting 1 week? -- 45:For an explanation of the process, see 14: 2978: 1245:? Are there any countervailing views? 1243:originality has been rejected by art 464:. Only fractionally better than any 25: 2244:, or one week as the case may be. 41:deletion review on 2009 February 15 23: 1015:as a an object of contemplation. 24: 2997: 637:they intend the "art" to happen. 2175:User:Artintegrated/Wikipedia Art 1471:. Any admins with me on this? -- 1103:separate those two discussions. 1023:and every other discipline from 29: 18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 13: 1: 2954:06:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 2936:06:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 2914:06:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 2880:06:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 2835:06:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 2816:06:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 2774:06:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 2753:06:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 2730:06:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 2712:05:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 2668:05:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 2634:05:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 2616:04:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 2598:04:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 2542:05:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 2502:04:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 2461:04:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 2419:04:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 2399:04:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 2378:04:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 2322:03:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 2303:03:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 2284:04:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 2267:03:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 2235:03:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 2213:03:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 2159:04:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 2137:03:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 2117:05:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 2103:02:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 2042:04:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 1999:03:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 1952:02:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 1912:02:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 1846:02:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 1799:03:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 1747:04:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 1647:02:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 1606:03:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 1591:02:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 1573:02:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 1555:02:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 1545:- freeze edits for 1 week. -- 1536:02:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 1481:01:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 1456:01:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 1438:01:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 1393:01:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 1368:01:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 1354:01:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 1337:01:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 1305:The five pillars of Knowledge 1284:01:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 1269:05:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 1255:01:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 1237:05:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 1222:01:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 1201:00:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 1164:01:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 1145:01:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 1130:01:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 1113:00:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 1089:01:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 1072:00:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 1054:00:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 961:00:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 903:23:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC) 887:23:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC) 872:23:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC) 849:22:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC) 819:01:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 801:23:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC) 779:22:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC) 760:22:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC) 731:22:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC) 714:22:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC) 672:22:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC) 647:22:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC) 622:22:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC) 590:22:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC) 578:21:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC) 547:23:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC) 530:22:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC) 505:22:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC) 486:21:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC) 453:21:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC) 427:01:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 410:21:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC) 394:21:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC) 375:22:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC) 350:21:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC) 325:22:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC) 290:21:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC) 264:03:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 238:20:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC) 7: 10: 3002: 597:Addition to the nomination 1323:and, last but not least, 470:avoid self-reference rule 47:Knowledge:Deletion review 2986:Pages at deletion review 2963:Please do not modify it. 2863:06:22, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC) 2697:05:30, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC) 2567:05:16, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC) 2527:05:00, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC) 2487:04:56, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC) 2445:04:50, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC) 2348:03:53, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC) 2143:reliable source coverage 2071:04:33, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC) 2027:03:32, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC) 1977:02:59, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC) 1937:02:39, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC) 1872:02:30, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC) 1828:03:12, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC) 1772:05:12, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC) 1727:02:22, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC) 1680:03:04, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC) 1632:02:48, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC) 1031:have disintegrated (see 660:http://wikipediaart.org/ 141:07:15, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC) 107:06:38, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC) 61:Please do not modify it. 2004:Jimmy Wales on Facebook 1651:You want to freeze the 2308:Move to project space 2048:shouting doesn't help 1784:- actually Knowledge 2760:: And just in case, 2387:breaching experiment 1516:No original research 1469:close this as delete 1321:no original research 740:breaching experiment 2825:Consumed Crustacean 2626:Shane Mecklenburger 2109:Shane Mecklenburger 1851:rule we have here. 1528:Shane Mecklenburger 1500:decade old chipsets 1346:Shane Mecklenburger 1261:Shane Mecklenburger 1229:Shane Mecklenburger 1156:Shane Mecklenburger 1122:Shane Mecklenburger 1081:Shane Mecklenburger 1033:interdisciplinarity 927:. Many articles on 811:Shane Mecklenburger 419:Shane Mecklenburger 2925:and the rest fail 2606:, the contrarian. 2588:, the Wikipedian? 1704:G1, G2, G3, or G11 2911: 2865: 2833: 2699: 2569: 2529: 2489: 2447: 2350: 2265: 2264: 2211: 2210: 2094:But Knowledge is 2073: 2029: 1979: 1939: 1874: 1830: 1774: 1729: 1682: 1634: 1396: 1379:comment added by 1189:is not a web host 327: 304: 292: 278: 266: 252: 143: 109: 53: 52: 39:was subject to a 2993: 2965: 2951: 2945: 2933: 2912: 2897: 2847: 2843: 2827: 2681: 2677: 2551: 2547: 2511: 2507: 2471: 2467: 2429: 2425: 2332: 2328: 2300: 2295: 2250: 2249: 2196: 2195: 2147:this art project 2055: 2051: 2011: 2007: 1961: 1957: 1921: 1917: 1856: 1852: 1812: 1808: 1756: 1752: 1711: 1707: 1664: 1660: 1616: 1612: 1512:Reliable sources 1395: 1373: 1317:reliable sources 710: 707: 700: 601:wikipediaart.org 321: 318: 311: 305: 295: 279: 269: 253: 243: 206: 200: 182: 125: 121: 91: 87: 63: 33: 32: 26: 3001: 3000: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2968:deletion review 2961: 2949: 2943: 2931: 2892: 2845: 2679: 2674:very remorseful 2549: 2509: 2469: 2427: 2424:facebook group. 2330: 2298: 2293: 2179:delete the rest 2053: 2009: 1959: 1919: 1854: 1810: 1754: 1732:But you saying 1709: 1662: 1614: 1374: 1100:"Knowledge Art" 1096:"Knowledge Art" 949:"Knowledge Art" 925:"Knowledge Art" 913:"Knowledge Art" 708: 705: 698: 319: 316: 309: 222:Nathaniel Stern 202: 173: 157: 154: 123: 114:deletion review 89: 76:Speedy delete ( 74:The result was 66:deletion review 59: 37:This discussion 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2999: 2989: 2988: 2973: 2972: 2939: 2938: 2916: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2867: 2866: 2837: 2818: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2714: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2575: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2380: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2305: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 1896: 1888: 1887: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1831: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1539: 1538: 1484: 1483: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1427: 1424: 1422: 1420: 1417: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1271: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 984:conceptual art 976:conceptual art 964: 963: 906: 905: 891: 890: 889: 874: 852: 851: 828: 827: 826: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 804: 803: 782: 781: 763: 762: 733: 716: 679: 678: 677: 676: 675: 674: 650: 649: 625: 624: 593: 592: 580: 554: 553: 552: 551: 550: 549: 532: 512: 511: 489: 488: 458: 457: 456: 455: 430: 429: 412: 399: 398: 397: 396: 378: 377: 352: 329: 328: 293: 267: 213: 212: 153: 148: 147: 146: 145: 144: 71: 70: 54: 51: 50: 44: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2998: 2987: 2984: 2983: 2981: 2971: 2969: 2964: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2952: 2946: 2937: 2934: 2928: 2924: 2920: 2917: 2915: 2909: 2905: 2901: 2896: 2890: 2887: 2886: 2881: 2878: 2875: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2864: 2861: 2859: 2854: 2853: 2848: 2841: 2838: 2836: 2831: 2826: 2822: 2819: 2817: 2814: 2811: 2806: 2802: 2798: 2794: 2790: 2786: 2782: 2779: 2775: 2771: 2767: 2763: 2759: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2750: 2746: 2742: 2739: 2738: 2731: 2727: 2723: 2719: 2718:Life of Riley 2715: 2713: 2709: 2705: 2701: 2700: 2698: 2695: 2693: 2688: 2687: 2682: 2675: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2665: 2661: 2657: 2653: 2650: 2647: 2646: 2635: 2631: 2627: 2623: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2613: 2609: 2608:Artintegrated 2605: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2583: 2568: 2565: 2563: 2558: 2557: 2552: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2539: 2535: 2534:Artintegrated 2531: 2530: 2528: 2525: 2523: 2518: 2517: 2512: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2499: 2495: 2494:Artintegrated 2491: 2490: 2488: 2485: 2483: 2478: 2477: 2472: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2458: 2454: 2453:Artintegrated 2449: 2448: 2446: 2443: 2441: 2436: 2435: 2430: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2416: 2412: 2411:Artintegrated 2407: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2396: 2392: 2391:Baileypalblue 2388: 2384: 2381: 2379: 2375: 2371: 2367: 2363: 2359: 2356: 2355: 2349: 2346: 2344: 2339: 2338: 2333: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2319: 2315: 2314: 2309: 2306: 2304: 2301: 2296: 2289: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2276:Baileypalblue 2272: 2268: 2262: 2258: 2254: 2247: 2243: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2232: 2228: 2224: 2223:Life of Riley 2220: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2208: 2204: 2200: 2193: 2189: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2171: 2166: 2165: 2160: 2156: 2152: 2151:Baileypalblue 2148: 2144: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2134: 2130: 2125: 2122: 2118: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2101: 2097: 2092: 2089: 2072: 2069: 2067: 2062: 2061: 2056: 2049: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2039: 2035: 2034:Artintegrated 2031: 2030: 2028: 2025: 2023: 2018: 2017: 2012: 2005: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1996: 1992: 1991:Artintegrated 1988: 1984: 1981: 1980: 1978: 1975: 1973: 1968: 1967: 1962: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1949: 1945: 1941: 1940: 1938: 1935: 1933: 1928: 1927: 1922: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1909: 1905: 1904:Artintegrated 1901: 1897: 1893: 1890: 1889: 1885: 1882: 1881: 1873: 1870: 1868: 1863: 1862: 1857: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1843: 1839: 1835: 1832: 1829: 1826: 1824: 1819: 1818: 1813: 1806: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1796: 1792: 1787: 1783: 1780: 1773: 1770: 1768: 1763: 1762: 1757: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1744: 1740: 1739:Artintegrated 1735: 1731: 1730: 1728: 1725: 1723: 1718: 1717: 1712: 1705: 1701: 1700:Speedy Delete 1698: 1697: 1681: 1678: 1676: 1671: 1670: 1665: 1658: 1655:because this 1654: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1644: 1640: 1636: 1635: 1633: 1630: 1628: 1623: 1622: 1617: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1603: 1599: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1570: 1566: 1562: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1552: 1548: 1544: 1541: 1540: 1537: 1533: 1529: 1525: 1521: 1517: 1513: 1509: 1508:Verifiability 1505: 1501: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1486: 1485: 1482: 1478: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1463: 1462: 1457: 1453: 1449: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1409: 1406: 1405: 1394: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1365: 1361: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1334: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1318: 1314: 1313:verifiability 1310: 1306: 1302: 1299: 1298: 1285: 1281: 1277: 1272: 1270: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1234: 1230: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1219: 1215: 1210: 1209: 1207: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1198: 1194: 1193:Baileypalblue 1190: 1187:. Knowledge 1186: 1183: 1182: 1165: 1161: 1157: 1153: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1127: 1123: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1101: 1097: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1086: 1082: 1078: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1061: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1043: 1038: 1034: 1030: 1026: 1022: 1018: 1017:New media art 1014: 1013:new media art 1010: 1006: 1005:contemplative 1002: 998: 997:Knowledge Art 993: 989: 988:new media art 985: 981: 980:new media art 977: 973: 969: 966: 965: 962: 958: 954: 950: 946: 942: 938: 934: 933:art movements 930: 926: 922: 918: 914: 911: 908: 907: 904: 900: 896: 892: 888: 884: 879: 875: 873: 869: 865: 860: 856: 855: 854: 853: 850: 846: 842: 837: 836:Brian Sherwin 833: 830: 829: 820: 816: 812: 808: 807: 806: 805: 802: 798: 794: 790: 789:Life of Riley 786: 785: 784: 783: 780: 776: 772: 767: 766: 765: 764: 761: 757: 753: 749: 748:Life of Riley 745: 741: 737: 734: 732: 728: 724: 720: 717: 715: 712: 711: 702: 701: 693: 688: 684: 681: 680: 673: 669: 665: 661: 657: 654: 653: 652: 651: 648: 644: 640: 636: 632: 629: 628: 627: 626: 623: 619: 615: 611: 610:intrinsically 606: 602: 598: 595: 594: 591: 588: 584: 581: 579: 575: 571: 567: 564:: this is an 563: 559: 556: 555: 548: 544: 540: 536: 533: 531: 527: 523: 519: 516: 515: 514: 513: 510: 506: 502: 498: 493: 492: 491: 490: 487: 483: 479: 475: 471: 467: 463: 460: 459: 454: 450: 446: 442: 441:intrinsically 438: 434: 433: 432: 431: 428: 424: 420: 416: 413: 411: 408: 404: 401: 400: 395: 391: 387: 382: 381: 380: 379: 376: 372: 368: 367:Artintegrated 364: 360: 359:Artintegrated 356: 353: 351: 347: 343: 342:Artintegrated 339: 334: 331: 330: 326: 323: 322: 313: 312: 302: 298: 294: 291: 287: 283: 276: 272: 268: 265: 261: 257: 250: 246: 242: 241: 240: 239: 235: 231: 227: 226:Brian Sherwin 223: 219: 218:Scott Kildall 210: 205: 198: 194: 190: 186: 181: 177: 172: 168: 164: 160: 159:Knowledge Art 156: 155: 152: 151:Knowledge Art 142: 139: 137: 132: 131: 126: 119: 115: 111: 110: 108: 105: 103: 98: 97: 92: 85: 81: 79: 73: 72: 69: 67: 62: 56: 55: 48: 42: 38: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2962: 2959: 2940: 2918: 2888: 2862: 2857: 2851: 2839: 2820: 2780: 2766:TallNapoleon 2761: 2757: 2745:TallNapoleon 2740: 2696: 2691: 2685: 2648: 2584:Do you mean 2566: 2561: 2555: 2526: 2521: 2515: 2486: 2481: 2475: 2444: 2439: 2433: 2382: 2366:internet art 2357: 2347: 2342: 2336: 2311: 2307: 2218: 2187: 2182: 2178: 2167: 2146: 2124:Comment/Keep 2123: 2090: 2070: 2065: 2059: 2026: 2021: 2015: 1976: 1971: 1965: 1936: 1931: 1925: 1891: 1883: 1871: 1866: 1860: 1833: 1827: 1822: 1816: 1804: 1785: 1781: 1771: 1766: 1760: 1726: 1721: 1715: 1699: 1679: 1674: 1668: 1656: 1652: 1631: 1626: 1620: 1542: 1487: 1468: 1464: 1414: 1407: 1341: 1300: 1242: 1205: 1184: 1152:encyclopedia 1076: 1059: 1029:microbiology 1025:epistemology 1001:epistemology 992:epistemology 967: 909: 877: 858: 831: 743: 735: 718: 704: 699:freshacconci 697: 691: 686: 682: 655: 634: 630: 609: 596: 582: 566:encyclopedia 561: 557: 534: 517: 461: 440: 437:about itself 436: 414: 402: 354: 332: 315: 310:freshacconci 308: 296: 270: 244: 214: 140: 135: 129: 106: 101: 95: 75: 60: 57: 36: 2704:Enric Naval 2660:Enric Naval 2604:Andy Warhol 2586:Andy Warhol 2406:Jimmy Wales 2168:Userfy the 1900:Jimmy Wales 1734:Jimmy Wales 1524:DanielRigal 1473:DanielRigal 1448:DanielRigal 1375:—Preceding 1329:DanielRigal 1276:DanielRigal 1214:DanielRigal 1137:DanielRigal 1037:utilitarian 895:DanielRigal 771:DanielRigal 664:DanielRigal 614:DanielRigal 522:DanielRigal 497:24.14.54.88 445:DanielRigal 386:DanielRigal 282:DanielRigal 256:DanielRigal 230:DanielRigal 84:User:Werdna 2793:WP:SOAPBOX 2656:WP:SOAPBOX 2170:first edit 1657:discussion 1561:WP:SOAPBOX 1492:Notability 1381:Mkewi53207 1309:notability 1062:to exist. 1007:object of 937:art styles 656:Correction 2846:Equazcion 2680:Equazcion 2624:artist.. 2622:canonized 2550:Equazcion 2510:Equazcion 2470:Equazcion 2428:Equazcion 2331:Equazcion 2129:Patlichty 2054:Equazcion 2010:Equazcion 1960:Equazcion 1944:Dronthego 1920:Equazcion 1855:Equazcion 1811:Equazcion 1805:temporary 1755:Equazcion 1710:Equazcion 1663:Equazcion 1639:Dronthego 1615:Equazcion 1583:Dronthego 1547:Dronthego 1430:Patlichty 1419:resolved. 864:Patlichty 744:Knowledge 723:OneMarkus 692:attempted 690:this was 539:Patlichty 124:Equazcion 90:Equazcion 2980:Category 2895:Huntster 2602:I meant 2590:Bus stop 2370:Robofish 2257:contribs 2203:contribs 1838:Artblogs 1598:Bus stop 1579:Bus stop 1565:Bus stop 1543:Proposal 1465:Proposal 1389:contribs 1377:unsigned 1360:Bus stop 1247:Bus stop 1105:Bus stop 1064:Bus stop 1050:contribs 972:exegesis 953:Bus stop 878:Comment: 859:Comment: 841:Artblogs 631:Comment: 482:contribs 474:RHaworth 439:. It is 209:View log 2840:Comment 2758:Comment 2383:Comment 2246:davidwr 2192:davidwr 2091:Comment 1892:Comment 1834:comment 1653:article 1342:Comment 1206:Comment 1077:Comment 978:and/or 929:artists 736:Delete. 535:Comment 518:Comment 415:Comment 403:Comment 333:Comment 176:protect 171:history 2944:Werdna 2932:Durova 2927:WP:NOR 2919:Delete 2889:Delete 2821:Delete 2797:WP:NFT 2789:WP:NEO 2781:Delete 2741:Delete 2649:Delete 2362:WP:NOT 2358:Delete 2261:e-mail 2219:itself 2207:e-mail 2100:Powers 1884:Delete 1502:, and 1185:Delete 1042:Shmeck 1009:beauty 935:, and 915:fails 910:Delete 832:delete 683:Delete 639:JohnCD 587:Powers 583:Delete 570:JohnCD 558:Delete 466:MADEUP 462:Delete 224:, and 204:delete 180:delete 78:CSD#A7 2923:WP:RS 2785:WP:OR 2764:too. 2652:WP:OR 2294:Versa 2188:about 2183:about 2177:then 1791:Frock 1301:Recap 1060:ought 746:. ••• 207:) – ( 197:views 189:watch 185:links 16:< 2950:talk 2877:lute 2874:Reso 2830:talk 2813:lute 2810:Reso 2805:WP:N 2801:WP:V 2783:per 2770:talk 2762:salt 2749:talk 2708:talk 2664:talk 2630:talk 2612:talk 2594:talk 2538:talk 2498:talk 2457:talk 2415:talk 2395:talk 2374:talk 2318:talk 2299:geek 2280:talk 2253:talk 2199:talk 2155:talk 2133:talk 2113:talk 2038:talk 1995:talk 1948:talk 1908:talk 1842:talk 1795:talk 1782:Keep 1743:talk 1643:talk 1602:talk 1587:talk 1569:talk 1551:talk 1532:talk 1488:Keep 1477:talk 1452:talk 1434:talk 1426:30). 1408:Keep 1385:talk 1364:talk 1350:talk 1333:talk 1327:. -- 1280:talk 1265:talk 1251:talk 1233:talk 1218:talk 1197:talk 1160:talk 1141:talk 1126:talk 1109:talk 1085:talk 1068:talk 1046:talk 986:and 968:Keep 957:talk 945:WP:V 943:and 941:WP:N 921:WP:V 919:and 917:WP:N 899:talk 883:talk 868:talk 845:talk 815:talk 775:talk 727:talk 719:Keep 709:talk 706:talk 687:here 668:talk 643:talk 635:here 618:talk 605:Wiki 574:talk 562:here 543:talk 526:talk 501:talk 478:Talk 472:. — 449:talk 423:talk 390:talk 371:talk 363:talk 355:KEEP 346:talk 320:talk 317:talk 297:Note 286:talk 271:Note 260:talk 245:Note 234:talk 193:logs 167:talk 163:edit 2313:DGG 2259:)/( 2255:)/( 2205:)/( 2201:)/( 2173:to 2145:of 2096:not 1027:to 1021:art 974:of 303:. 277:. 251:. 82:by 2982:: 2947:• 2906:• 2902:• 2893:— 2803:, 2799:, 2795:, 2791:, 2787:, 2772:) 2751:) 2728:) 2710:) 2676:. 2666:) 2654:, 2632:) 2614:) 2596:) 2540:) 2500:) 2459:) 2417:) 2397:) 2376:) 2320:) 2282:) 2233:) 2157:) 2135:) 2115:) 2050:. 2040:) 1997:) 1950:) 1910:) 1844:) 1797:) 1786:is 1745:) 1702:- 1645:) 1604:) 1589:) 1571:) 1553:) 1534:) 1498:, 1479:) 1454:) 1436:) 1428:-- 1391:) 1387:• 1366:) 1352:) 1335:) 1319:, 1315:, 1311:, 1282:) 1267:) 1253:) 1235:) 1220:) 1199:) 1162:) 1143:) 1128:) 1111:) 1087:) 1070:) 1052:) 1048:• 959:) 951:. 931:, 901:) 885:) 870:) 847:) 817:) 799:) 777:) 758:) 729:) 670:) 645:) 620:) 576:) 545:) 528:) 509:TS 507:-- 503:) 484:) 480:| 451:) 425:) 407:TS 392:) 373:) 348:) 288:) 262:) 236:) 220:, 195:| 191:| 187:| 183:| 178:| 174:| 169:| 165:| 120:. 112:A 86:. 43:. 2910:) 2908:c 2904:@ 2900:t 2898:( 2860:• 2858:C 2855:/ 2852:✗ 2850:• 2832:) 2828:( 2768:( 2747:( 2726:C 2724:– 2722:T 2720:( 2706:( 2694:• 2692:C 2689:/ 2686:✗ 2684:• 2662:( 2628:( 2610:( 2592:( 2564:• 2562:C 2559:/ 2556:✗ 2554:• 2536:( 2524:• 2522:C 2519:/ 2516:✗ 2514:• 2496:( 2484:• 2482:C 2479:/ 2476:✗ 2474:• 2455:( 2442:• 2440:C 2437:/ 2434:✗ 2432:• 2413:( 2393:( 2372:( 2345:• 2343:C 2340:/ 2337:✗ 2335:• 2316:( 2278:( 2263:) 2251:( 2248:/ 2231:C 2229:– 2227:T 2225:( 2209:) 2197:( 2194:/ 2153:( 2131:( 2111:( 2068:• 2066:C 2063:/ 2060:✗ 2058:• 2036:( 2024:• 2022:C 2019:/ 2016:✗ 2014:• 1993:( 1974:• 1972:C 1969:/ 1966:✗ 1964:• 1946:( 1934:• 1932:C 1929:/ 1926:✗ 1924:• 1906:( 1869:• 1867:C 1864:/ 1861:✗ 1859:• 1840:( 1825:• 1823:C 1820:/ 1817:✗ 1815:• 1793:( 1769:• 1767:C 1764:/ 1761:✗ 1759:• 1741:( 1724:• 1722:C 1719:/ 1716:✗ 1714:• 1677:• 1675:C 1672:/ 1669:✗ 1667:• 1641:( 1629:• 1627:C 1624:/ 1621:✗ 1619:• 1600:( 1585:( 1567:( 1549:( 1530:( 1475:( 1450:( 1432:( 1383:( 1362:( 1348:( 1331:( 1278:( 1263:( 1249:( 1231:( 1216:( 1195:( 1158:( 1139:( 1124:( 1107:( 1083:( 1066:( 1044:( 955:( 897:( 881:( 876:' 866:( 857:' 843:( 813:( 797:C 795:– 793:T 791:( 773:( 756:C 754:– 752:T 750:( 725:( 666:( 641:( 616:( 572:( 541:( 524:( 499:( 476:( 447:( 421:( 388:( 369:( 361:( 344:( 306:— 284:( 280:— 258:( 254:— 232:( 211:) 201:( 199:) 161:( 138:• 136:C 133:/ 130:✗ 128:• 104:• 102:C 99:/ 96:✗ 94:• 80:) 49:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Knowledge Art - Knowledge

Index