Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Art
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
— User:DanielRigal, 02:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:N||WP:V (Wikipedia:Notability)