Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RTMark

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. Randykitty (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RTMark

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

Old article from when standards were lower. Mention in a book, but I don't see enough to pass our current standards of multiple, significant coverage. Fails WP:CORP, which is a bit of irony I suppose. Dennis - 2¢ 23:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Well known culture jamming/subversive art group. As much as I don't like linking to a primary source for AfD purposes, they've done a good job of tracking their own press coverage (which is a significant amount). See their website and click through the press section that accompanies each past project (e.g. GWBush.com project was covered in more or less all of the major news organizations, they were part of the 2000 Whitney Biennial, etc.). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep important artist collective of culture jammers, with several projects that had media attention. This article is linked from several other articles on Wikipedia, so I don't see what good deleting it will accomplish. It is also linked to a Czech version.+mt 02:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:GNG - I read a few topics on the page linked by Rhododendrites. There is significant coverage in international media. - Taketa (talk) 07:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found coverage in Culture Jamming: Ideological Struggle and the Possibilities for Social Change, an article about their WTO spoof from The Register, Evolution in Reference and Information Services: The Impact of the Internet, Encyclopedia of Social Movement Media (which is admittedly heavily slanted toward coverage of the BLO), and As Radical as Reality Itself: Essays on Marxism and Art for the 21st Century. I see many other hits available on Google Books. I think there's quite enough coverage here to write a decent article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Excellent analysis by Rhododendrites, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. I did see it mentioned in some notable places (PBS, Encyclopedia Britannica, sfgate, NYTimes) but they were either all REALLY old (2001, 2000) or drive-by mentions in articles about other things. Most of the other hits were either typos for the word "remark" or primary sources. Seems like novelty non-profit that has gotten some press for simply existing in the early days of the web, but isn't notable for anything in particular. Their biggest claim to fame seems like a one-off doll prank (called the Barbie Liberation Organization, which should probably be AfD'd too).--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to weak delete. Read a couple spanish links at random.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Esprit15d: - Notability is not temporary, old references stay valid. See WP:NTEMP. - Taketa (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Esprit15d: I'd encourage you to look at the link to their site I posted above. Many well publicized pranks/events/stunts/exhibits/interviews/whatever we want to call them. Many of the passing mentions of RTMark are in larger articles about their projects (like GWBush.com), which especially given the breadth of coverage and number of those events that received coverage speaks to the notability of them (but there are sufficient sources even if we don't count those passing mentions, too). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:54, 5 November 2014 (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.