Deletion of Wikipedia Art

Comment: 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.  |Notability - 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, Lost_Experience#Gary_Troup|minor fictional characters from television shows, K6-2|decade old chipsets, and Ral_Partha|manufacturers of Dungeons and Dragons miniature figurines) I'd say this met the established standard easily. |Verifiability - 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. wp:rs|Reliable sources - 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. wp:nor|No original research - none is necessary. We know all we need to know. wp:point|Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point - 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: Wikipedia |is not a web host 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:WEBHOST)

Comment: 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.  But Wikipedia is |not a repository or venue for art experiments.  We eliminate graffiti when we find it, and that's all this is
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Wikipedia Art|"Wikipedia Art" fails  and . So far I have heard no reason why an exception should be made for Wikipedia Art|"Wikipedia Art". Many articles on artists, art movements, and art styles are deleted due to failure to meet minimum requirements for  and . 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 Wikipedia articles. In the absence of any reasons given for overriding Wikipedia basic policy, I see no reason not to delete Wikipedia Art|"Wikipedia Art
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V||WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: per , , , , ,  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 Wikipedia namespace.  It flat out does not belong in article space
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NEO||WP:SOAPBOX||WP:NFT||WP:V||WP:N)

Comment: As the contributor of ten percent of Wikipedia's featured pictures and twenty percent of its featured sounds, assuring fellow editors that this can be safely deleted. Most of the citations fail  and the rest fail .  'Wikipedia 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NOR)

Comment: this is not what Wikipedia is for (see ). As an article, it fails the notability test. If anyone wants to write a well-sourced article about internet art as applied to wikis, be my guest, but this isn't it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: WP:OR, , 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAPBOX)

Comment: Only fractionally better than any |MADEUP topic. Created very recently. Also a totally confused concept - a collaborative art project - fine. But trying to do it on one Wikipedia page - you must be joking mate! We also have an |avoid self-reference rule. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day (WP:MADEUP||WP:ASR)