Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Truth (painting)

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 delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Truth (painting)

The Truth (painting) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article about a non-notable painting should be deleted. Per WP:NTEMP: Notability is not temporary. It takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability. (Or in this case, a couple of press releases three days apart about a non-event that did not happen):

  1. April 24, 2009, 9:35 AM EDT — artist Noah Greenspan of Noah G POP Fine Art Management Group (NGP FAM), publicist for obscure, non-notable New York artist Michael D'Antuono, places a press release Painter Michael D'Antuono To Unveil Controversial New Work in NYC's Union Square on Obama's 100th Day in Office on PR Newswire[1] and Reuters[2] about a planned 12-hour exhibit on April 29, 2009 in New York City's Union Square of D'Antuono's "controversial" painting "The Truth" (depicting Barack Obama as Jesus Christ with a Crown of Thorns) to cash in on the media hoopla about First 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency, to promote D'Antuono, and to drive traffic to D'Antuono's personal website http://www.dantuonoarts.com.
  2. April 24–27, 2009 — predictable "outrage" about "blasphemy" from anti-Obama bloggers, increased traffic to D'Antuono's personal website http://www.dantuonoarts.com, and a self-reported 3,000 emails to D'Antuono protesting his planned exhibit.
  3. April 27, 2009 11:06 AM EDT — artist Noah Greenspan of Noah G POP Fine Art Management Group (NGP FAM), publicist for obscure, non-notable New York artist Michael D'Antuono, places a press release 'The Truth': D'Antuono Cancels Unveiling of Obama Painting Due to Public Outrage on PR Newswire[3] and Reuters[4] that the planned exhibit of D'Antuono's painting "The Truth" has been canceled.
  4. April 27, 2009, 6:31 PM EDT — Grundel2600 creates the article The Truth (painting) with a Template:Under construction tag requesting that the article not be tagged for deletion for several days.
  5. April 29, 2009 — conservative columnist Amanda Carpenter devotes 168 words of her Hot Button column on page A18 of The Washington Times to noting that the planned exhibit of D'Antuono's painting "The Truth" has been canceled (only print media mention of painting).

Newross (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't contest this, and I'm the one who created the article. At the time, it was planned that the painting would be displayed in public, but that plan has since been canceled. So you can delete the article immediately, without any argument form me. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Was it a publicity stunt? Was the outrage to be expected? Maybe. But it passes our notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per author; all coverage seems to derive from one press release. PhGustaf (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a blip that was aborted before it even happened. Majority of sources are unreliable conservative blogs, not reliable or substantial as some claim. No articles link to it, and it is not notable enough to be added to any. No point in keeping a perpetual orphan. Tarc (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Which sources are unreliable conservative blogs? Orphan? APK straight up now tell me 18:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A simple google search of the painting mainly reveals a lot of hotair.com and worldnetdaily dribble. As for the orphan status, that is the way the article was when I looked at it the other day. I did not realize that you had just linked to it in a template this morning, a link which should be deleted, given the trivial, non-notability here. Tarc (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A simple look at the article will see the LA Times & Washington Times is included as refs. Is the South Park episode trivial and non-notable? APK straight up now tell me 19:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per PhGustaf, not really notable, press release non-withstanding. You have to do better than this to claim notability because of public outrage against something. Had the painting been displayed anyway and then had body wastes flung at it, that might have worked. Drawn Some (talk)
  • Keep per mentions in the LA Times and Washington Times. APK straight up now tell me 18:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still WP:ONEEVENT. Drawn Some (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So is this, yet it survives with fewer sources. Also, a painting is not an event. APK straight up now tell me 18:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, why did you add this to the template about the public image of Obama? Do you sincerely believe that this is part of his public image? Drawn Some (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, look at Public image of Barack Obama#Depictions and the see also section below it. APK straight up now tell me 18:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any links to this page not manufactured by APK? PhGustaf (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've also seen a website of children's drawings of Obama, should it also be included on the template? Drawn Some (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Manufactured"..."children's drawings" I seem to have struck a nerve. What is it exactly that you're implying, PhGustaf? I came across the article several hours ago, formatted refs, added cats, and added a template that's found on similar Obama-related articles. Drawn Some, if you have a mature question to ask me, I'll reply. BTW, Is it safe to assume anyone who votes keep will be berated, or am I the lucky one? APK straight up now tell me 19:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was a very serious question. I would like to know what the criteria are for inclusion on that template, what your decision process was, before I revert your addition. I believe that a website of children's drawings of Obama would be a more likely candidate for the template. I fail to see how a single non-notable representation of Obama would be considered part of his public image. Drawn Some (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll repeat myself. Public image of Barack Obama#Depictions includes depictions of Obama. The 'See also' section and/or template includes Barack the Magic Negro, Super Obama World, and About Last Night... (South Park). Tell me how those articles are unlike the one I added to the template? APK straight up now tell me 19:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know the criteria for inclusion on the template. There are millions of depictions of Obama and tens or hundreds of thousands of new ones are created daily on six continents so there must be some way to determine which ones are included. We have rules about references to establish notability on Wikipedia and press releases and reprints of them are specifically excluded, for instance. Drawn Some (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Also, Category:Public image of American politicians says "This category is for articles concerning the public image and perception of politicians of the United States of America." (emphasis mine) The artist thinks some people perceive Obama as a Messiah. (side note: I usually avoid articles where emotions run high, so I find this interrogation rather amusing/weird) APK straight up now tell me 19:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know the criteria for inclusion on the template. Me too. APK straight up now tell me 19:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if this is your way of finding out then WP:POINT. Drawn Some (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was not a "point" and I'm getting rather fed up with your b.s. accusations. I've already explained (not that I need to) my reasoning. The only thing you've come up with is insinuations I've done something evil. If you want to continue this waterboarding process, do it on my talk page and stop wasting space here. APK straight up now tell me 20:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per WP:NOTNEWS unless or until the artist himself is worth an article (that survives AfD). Possibly speedy delete since creator of article has supported its removal (because of non-event of its "planned" exhibition). LotLE×talk 19:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable painting - the one event guideline likely applies to the creator, and while notability doesn't extend from one article subject to the other, I think non-notability of a creator extends to his work, despite/because of the limited coverage. Hekerui (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Notability for a Wikipedia article requires more than just a flash in the pan news item. DreamGuy (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom and article creator: notability was questionable to start with, but if the event talked about in the sources didn't even happen, it's certainly not notable. Tvoz/talk 21:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - per APK especially, and CoM. I found another RS, the Buffalo Examiner here with the title: "'The Truth': D'Antuono Cancels Unveiling of Obama Painting Due to Public Outrage". Reuters, the Washington Times, the National Review, and the LA Times are clearly mainstream, multiple, independent and reliable sources and therefore satisfies notability. The NR cite is an article in a conservative but still mainstream RS; the LA Times cite is a piece, not a mention; and Reuters is a major and respected news service with more than a mention. The Washington Times is not a lot more than a mention, but at 168 words is clearly more, so it qualifies. They all add up to more than sufficient RS and it's clearly not a WP:ONEEVENT. Also not an orphan, and we can't speedy delete when there are keep votes. I'm not sure about the cat, have to research that, but it's not the subject of this AfD. — Becksguy (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Buffalo piece is just another copy of the press release that started the whole thing. It doesn't gather any extra cred, any more than an AP release is worth a thousand cites. PhGustaf (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Buffalo examiner looked at the piece, made a journalistic decision as to it's newsworthiness, and published it. Therefore it independently bolsters it. So yes, it does gain extra cred, just as if any other journalistically independent RS publishes from a wire service. — Becksguy (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of sourcing available. Here's A National Review online interview with the artist to add content on motivation and background; this would support expanding and, logically, updates to this painting which has generated buzz without being displayed. There is a post that it's one of the most emailed photos as well but I don't as of yet see a source to support that. -- Banjeboi 00:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blogs can be reliable sources and I think this one certainly is. It is cited but almost as a add-on, there is plenty more content in it which suggests that other sources may also be under-utilized. WP:ONEEVENT concerns people, not paintings, but the clincher clause anyway is - people likely to remain low-profile. Unsure if that's a reasonable conclusion here. -- Banjeboi 22:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, author. Most references are rehashes of the press release. Many aren't even in English, which would seem to be a WP:NONENG problem. The artist isn't notable and the event never happened. Recommend speedy since author agrees with deletion. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Five established editors have voted to keep so far, so if this is speedied, it would probably just wind up in DRV, since speedy is for uncontested or uncontroversial actions. Also, see my argument above about independent journalistic decisions to publish. Also, it's the outrage that makes it notable. — Becksguy (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  1. There are zero mainstream news articles about non-notable artist Michael D'Antuono's non-notable painting "The Truth" which did not make news because it was not exhibited.
  2. There were two press releases by D'Antuono's publicist, Noah G POP Fine Art Management, issued three days apart:
    1. Friday, April 24, 2009 — announcing the planned exhibit of a self-described "controversial" painting and inviting e-mails about it.
    2. Monday, April 27, 2009 — announcing the cancelation of the planned exhibit due to the receipt of e-mails decrying the self-described "controversial" painting.
  3. PR Newswire is a press release agency that distributes press releases written by businesses that pay it to distribute their press releases.
  4. Reuters is a news agency that distributes news, or in this instance, distributes, unaltered, PR Newswire-distributed press releases written by businesses that pay PR Newswire to distribute their press releases.
  5. The National Review Online reference is a blog entry by Mark Hemingway.
  6. The Los Angeles Times reference is a blog entry by David Ng.
  7. The Washington Times reference is one-fifth of an column by Amanda Carpenter, citing Mark Hemingway's National Review Online blog entry.
Newross (talk) 04:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An LA Times blog is considered reliable according to 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Click on WP:V, scroll down to the bottom of the page, and look at note #4. (in regards to WP:SPS) "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources." According to the New York Times, David Ng "writes theater reviews for The Village Voice. He also covers theater and the arts for The Los Angeles Times, American Theater magazine and ARTnews." Ng has written 70 articles for the LA Times. How is the blog's reliablilty any different than this article he published April 29, 2009? APK straight up now tell me 05:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The issue is notability not reliability. The Los Angeles Times "full editorial control" apparently determined that David Ng's blog entry about a non-event was not newsworthy enough to warrant a David Ng article in the Los Angeles Times newspaper. Nor newsworthy enough for a Wikipedia encyclopedia article. Newross (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep APK pretty much said it all. Blogs are merely a format to present a review in -- A series of messages in a recognizable format or as our article says: "Entries are commonly displayed in reverse-chronological order." As long as the blogs are written by professionals and are subject to editorial judgement, they're reliable. = Mgm|(talk) 09:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Newross keeps making reference to press releases as if they somehow poison all the sources. When Microsoft issues a press release about a new operating system (eg - Vista), that's news. When the White House issues a press release on the financial crisis, that's news. And once published in a RS, they are both acceptable here, for the same reason. They have been vetted. The Press Secretary is a glorified publicist for the White House and the administration, spin doctoring with the best of them. What newspapers and journalists do, as independent, reliable, and neutral analysts and publishers of information, is to fact check the information and apply editorial oversight regardless of the origin of the information. Be it from Bernie Madoff, the White House, the man on the street, or a publisher of PR. That vetting process makes it a reliable source and that's why they are secondary sources. APK is absolutely correct in his arguments on blogs specific to this issue. Unreliable and unacceptable blogs are those that anyone can edit without any editorial oversight, for example reader comments attached to articles or opinion pieces. These cited newspaper "blogs" (eg - National Review and LA Times) are written by professional journalists as part of their job and are under editorial oversight, and are therefore reliable sources. Un-vetted and unexamined PR is, I agree, usually unacceptable, except in relation to its self. The RS citations provided in the article and here more than satisfy any reasonable requirement for verifiability. I have seen articles kept at AfD with considerably less RS provided. The press release and blog oppositional arguments should be rejected as not compelling, and not grounded in policy or guidelines. If the only sources were the press releases, and the showing was canceled, then I would be voting to delete also. The outrage as reliably reported made this notable, not the PR. Becksguy (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The National Review Online is not a newspaper. There is zero evidence that "as independent, reliable, and neutral analysts and publishers of information," PR Newswire, Reuters, or the news aggregator websites that distributed—unaltered—press releases by D'Antuono's publicist, took any steps "to fact check the information and apply editorial oversight." The fine print at the bottom of the two press releases[5][6] written by D'Antuono's publicist and distributed by the press release agency PR Newswire says: "Issuers of news releases and not PR Newswire are solely responsible for the accuracy of the content." The only source for the claimed "overwhelming public outrage" was D'Antuono and a press release written by D'Antuono's publicist.[7] Newross (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable, perhaps if he sets fire to the work on Times Square, it would be slightly more obvious than it is currently that this was a case a low standard commercial artist attempting to publicise his work for commercial purposes. The sorry saga was barely chronicled anywhere and isn't notable for wikipedia. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable Splette :) How's my driving? 19:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep-I'm not sure if its me or not, but it seems that WP:NTEMP has been changed. It used to say

If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic, though subjects that do not meet the guideline at one point in time may do so as time passes and more sources come into existence. However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future.

I find the current interpretation utterly sacrilegious. This is indeed a well sourced and ongoing event and as such, I vote keep.Smallman12q (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to add that this article has a number of related news articles.Smallman12q (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. As a technical matter I don't think the article passes general notability - a single mention on the LA times news blog, plus press releases, partisan sources (covering a partisan issue), foreign language sources. If every painting that ever got a short article on a major newspaper were considered notable we would have several hundred thousand articles about paintings of no real note. What makes this one interesting and possibly encyclopedic, though, is that it relates to Obama and the public image of Obama including, perhaps unintentionally, a play on the radical conservative refrain that liberals see Obama as their messiah. If the artist had gone ahead and exhibited the painting in Times Square, no doubt it would have gotten some more press. I know that notability is based on coverage in the sources, not just what we think is interesting, but if something is on the borderline as this one is I think we should err on the side of adding material that can enlighten the reader, and this article does that. Also, there are enough sources to write a competent little start class article. Wikidemon (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 01:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 01:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT. freshacconci talktalk 03:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per deleters. Johnbod (talk) 03:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Barack Obama's list of related deletions. LadyofShalott 04:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Author doesn't oppose delete. Ardent self-promotion should show more success than this has to be considered notable. Refs are largely to paid placement - e.g. Reuters+ PRNewsWire.--Elvey (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Conceivably notable as a very minor media non-event, reminiscent of the one or two years back over I have a film of Marilyn Monroe giving a blow-job, and I am so appalled by this that I am going to sell it, and you're just going to have to take my word for it because I'm not going to show anyone. The artist is otherwise unknown, the work has never been exhibited, and there seems little likelihood that it will be exhibited. I did wonder about its eventual donation to or even purchase by the Museum of Bad Art, but my reading of this, combined with my (admittedly amateur) evaluation of the work, suggests that it wouldn't qualify. Do we have a more politely worded equivalent of Category:Non-events that make the media go apeshit for 15 minutes? -- Hoary (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it should be kept, but only if the author can provide more reliable sources than just a blog and a few articles. I personally think it is an interesting article, though there definitely should be better resources. I think many people would agree that it is an interesting article and that it should be kept. (I hope this is what I do to say that I want to keep it!) =0)Swimmerfreak94 (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good response. Really, you can say anything you want. Your goal is to convince others (and especially the closing administrator) of your point-of-view. Once you've been here a while, you'll start citing various guidelines and policies pro or con. As it is, I think this discussion turns on notability and verifiability of sources which is pretty much what you argued. Simply saying it's "interesting" may invite some counter arguments (such as WP:ILIKEIT), but you seem to have hit on the basic issues around sources. Welcome. freshacconci talktalk 15:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The keep arguments convinced me. It has mention in major news papers, some of which have been mentioned and added to the article already. [8] Dream Focus 17:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and the fact the news articles report an event not happening. How many articles about notable works of art start "X is a work of art that has never been exhibited publicly", supported with sources attesting to the fact that it has never been shown anywhere? Ludicrous.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason the art wasn't exhibited was because it caused a public outcry.Smallman12q (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "outrage" is documented primarily by the artist's own press release. PhGustaf (talk) 01:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as coming very close to the ultimate non-event. Unknown painter of kitsch creates possible contender for inclusion in the Museum of Bad Art, has PR hack spam news agencies with the announcement that he may raise more questions than answers when he unveils his highly controversial new painting, "The Truth" on the South Plaza of NYC's Union Square on the 100th day of Barack Obama's presidency (my emphases). And then he changes his mind. Note that no gallery was going to unveil the opuscule, let alone any publicly funded gallery: D'Antuono was no Mapplethorpe (and his exhibitors exhibited, rather than chickening out). It would seem that the only print appearance of his non-event was a short mention in the Washington Moonie, and even there the columnist merely lists the non-event among a pile of other stuff about hammers, sickles, guns and other staples of the tired old "culture wars"; she seems rather bored. It's true that "WorldNetDaily" manages to work itself into a righteous lather over this; its [http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=96417 newzoid story on the non-event] is immediately followed by Related offers: / Get "The Audacity of Deceit," and learn about the looming hostile attack on Judeo-Christian values and freedoms Americans hold dear etc etc so I see where they're coming from and start to wonder about donations of straitjackets. -- Hoary (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hoary, I think you make some good arguments. But let's not forget that Robert Mapplethorpe is probably MOST famous for the controversies over his photographs of nudes and the ensuing controversy over what is and isn't pornography. So your argument correctly understood supports including this work of art that was discussed in many newspapers around the world. If it was a publicity stunt it was an effective one, as it received substantial coverage and created a controversy, as it has here on Wikipedia. If you look closely at the Mona Lisa you will see that it has a very unusual background and is a bit strange and provocative and is quite unusual for portraiture of its time. Richard Serra is famous in large part for the controversies that ensued over public outrage leading to the removal of one of his sculptures from a public space and the ensuing outrage from those who believe art is sacred and shouldn't be subject to public whim. Jean-Michel Basquiat, Keith Haring, Jackson Pollock and Van Gogh, are all artists who established notoriety in large part for their roles in controversies and by receiving substantial media coverage. This particular artist and artwork aren't the most notable, but the coverage and the controversy, and the political issues and perceptions involved in this artwork are notable enough that it is certainly worth including in a pageless encyclopedia. It's never good to censor art, good or bad. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well maybe, but to me the media coverage of this work of acrylic art is hardly substantial. (Incidentally, when will Keith Boadwee get a WP article? He's gone through a lot for it, or anyway a lot has gone through him [NSFW].) -- Hoary (talk) 06:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has Boadwee's work been covered in reliable independent sources? That cite looks like some kind of blog, and not all publicity stunts and grossout artworks are notable. But as far as publicity stunts and controversial artworks go, there are articles on Fountain (Duchamp) and Piss Christ. The artwork that is the subject of this article isn't as notable as those examples, but it was covered internationally by reliable media sources and seems to me to have caused enough of a stir to warrant inclusion. It's certainly not a slam dunk. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the article I noticed that some of the refs indicating the story of the painting was carried internationally were removed. I'm not sure why. But if you take a look at an older version [9], it's clear the story of the painting was carried in many countries. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Boadwee's art has indeed been so covered, yes. I first encountered him back in the pre-blogospheric era, in the Eye's "Pseud's Corner"; I think quoting some unintentionally risible art journal. First time around, his art was produced fundamentally. He later reappeared with a new, emetic method of production. He certainly was covered in the art world, even if mostly (exclusively?) as a joke. Some comments are unkind, but others are hagiographic. Though of course WP:SOMEOTHERGUYISFUNNIER is not a valid reason for a delete vote ("!vote"). Duchamp's "Fountain" and Serrano's "Piss Christ" -- to which you might have added Manzoni's Merda d'artista -- got not just more but hugely more coverage than The Truth has. They're even mentioned in actual books. Of course, WP is not paper, but it's also not bog paper, to be used to help self-promoting nobodies become self-promoting Somebodies. -- Hoary (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing this work to Mapplethorpe, Serrano, Serra, et al is a gross over-simplification and all the examples listed are notable without their respective controversies. (The inclusion of Richard Serra in this is in particular specious: he was a major international artist for 15 years before Tilted Arc). This is a one-time event (actually a non-event) for a non-notable artist. And let's not forget that "fame" and "notability" are not the same. Mapplethorpe may not have been part of popular consciousness (referenced on The Simpsons and so on) had it not been for the Contemporary Art Center controversy, but he was notable as an artist before this. freshacconci talktalk 13:16, 10 May 2009 (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.