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. Michig (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Turf War (Banksy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The graffitist Banksy is notable and perhaps some of his shows are particularly notable. This article, along with Barely_Legal_(Banksy), The Village Pet Store and Charcoal Grill are articles for his shows. I am new here but from what I am reading, I can't see how there should be an article for each one of his art shows. Graywalls (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redirect to Banksy. Changing my cast after reading discussion. Graywalls (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, at the very least even without looking for sources, this could be a redirect (struck out as now article shows notability) to the artist instead of an outright deletion as a search term by wikireaders. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Even if the exhibition is not independently notable, redirecting and merging are better options than deleting. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Banksy. In fact, Redirect the other two mentioned by Nom to Banksy as well. there is just not enough material to warrant separate articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• E.M.Gregory, I don't think we should encourage merging content into the lengthy parent article. If anything, we should be working to fork content out of the parent article. List of works by Banksy might be a better option. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

:::That is a list of works that independently pass WP:GNG. The article under discussion here, and the two mentioned above are lightly sourced stubs.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect The exhibitions can be mentioned in the relevant Year in Art articles, if they aren't already. Deb (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Deb, Ok, but did you even attempt to review existing coverage before voting here? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  What are you implying? Deb (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Deb, Your vote says nothing about secondary coverage, so I'm curious if you reviewed available sourcing before voting to redirect. No offense meant. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Tell you what, instead of repeatedly going on about how many sources there are, why don't you just add them to the article and save everyone else a lot of time. Deb (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Deb, That's not a constructive comment in this particular discussion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, it is an excellent suggestion. The most constructive thing you can do in teh case of a page that you think should be kept is simply to source and improve the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, in general the sentiment is helpful, but I just meant more insight into why Deb voted they way they did without specifically referring to secondary coverage would also be helpful. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This first Banksy has WP:SIGCOV. Just tag for sourcing an keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  E.M.Gregory, Exactly, thank you. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (disclaimer, article creator): I believe this article should be kept, or if deemed not notable enough for a standalone article, then redirected. There's no need to totally delete pages when redirects serve a purpose. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge a bit to Banksy, which already has more on it. User:Another Believer, this is pretty pathetic really - you don't even say what year it was (2003 per his biog). Johnbod (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Or Keep - certainly improved now. Johnbod (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, yeah, I created a sub-stub. Doesn't mean the topic isn't notable and I'm working to add additional sourcing. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:HEYMANN upgrade satisfies all objects raised by Nom and editors above. We can now keep per WP:SIGCOV added to article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  E.M.Gregory, I've asked Graywalls and Deb to revisit. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the research done by Another Believer. The exhibition is the specific focus of the 2003 articles from BBC News and The Observer and the undated article from Artnet. The show is also mentioned prominently in the 2003 Guardian article. Other sources, while not providing significant coverage, contain useful details and help contextualize the exhibition in the arc of Banksy's career. The sustained coverage in later sources pushes this article past the minimum requirements of WP:GNG, in my view. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per topic and above discussion. And an obvious Keep per historic significance. Good save by the author. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, have struck out my "redirect" at the very least comment way near the top of this afd as article improvements now easily show that this is notable for a standalone article. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2019 (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.