Tuesday, 20 March 2007

From Wikipedia

The discussion page, from a couple years ago, of "Articles for deletion/Mezangelle." (The Mezangelle article was renominated for deletion the other day).

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.

The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 13:41, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[...] Its very difficult to make out what this article is saying, but from what I gather its about a language made up by two people through online communication. The rest of the article seems to be trying to define several neologisms related to it. Thryduulf 01:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep: This article perhaps doesn't make sense to the user voting for deletion because of a lack of context re: net.art. Maybe more work needs to be done on the Net.Art article and surrounding area of internet art / new media to help bring this article into context? - Arcae 03:11, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

    • This users only contributions [1] are to this VfD. Thryduulf 09:27, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

      • Dude, editing other people's votes is unacceptable. And posting comments against other users in a VfD discussion is offtopic and rather rude. Trust the admin to evaluate the votes properly, and talk about the content, not the user.---Isaac R 22:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and cleanup. I've never heard of any of this stuff before and I doubt any of you have either, but don't just vote based on that. From what I could tell it's not so much a language but a form of artistic composition. It's definitely not mainstream and never will be, but it's real and just interesting enough to deserve an article. —TeknicTalk/Mail 06:36, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

    • Nevermind, Delete as original research/invention in light of Mez's comment below (sorry Mez, give it some time then let somebody else write the article) —TeknicTalk/Mail 08:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

      • Ok, last time, I promise. Keep in light of Mez's new comments. Established artform. —TeknicTalk/Mail 21:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep: Thryduulf - agreed re: difficulty level of the original article edit [I'm the writer, so hello]. I've made several changes to the 1st draft, including relevant links and cues as to the context of the net.art genre, where mezangelle slots within this, some historical foregrounding, and links to other/potential wikipedia articles. This article is my first wikipedia foray, and is the testing ground for subsequent net.art-based/satellite articles [I'm especially keen to flesh out the article on codework and assume merging several of the articles could be a option]? I also assumed that edits were essentially an integral part of the wikipedia policy, and constructing the article through various rewrites was acceptable, rather than establishing from the get-go a polished, cohesive write. I intend to rewrite aspects of it given the overlap within the intended article-set devoted to the net.art field, with a comprehensive list of citations to accompany it/them [there is a mammoth amount of critical theory surrounding this genre]. If you require current validation of the genre/language/citations listed in the article, please feel free to google relevant terms such as mezangelle, Mary-anne Breeze, netwurker, codework, net.art and judge their historical/educational value? Mez 06:52, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete'. 100 hits for Mezangelle "net.art"--doesn't seem to have gained sufficient traction. To compare, invented language Tavo (tavo language) gets 6,000 hits. Niteowlneils 07:33, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable. Postdlf 09:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable, sockpuppet-supported. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:04, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep: Please reconsider the article and your votes. I rewrote it to match Wikipedia's style and editorial policy. It should now be better understandable to a general readership. This is a useful entry that explains an important, recognized part of codework and Internet art. If the article will stay, the articles on codework and Portmanteau words should link to it. Cantsin, 14:51, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

    • User's 19th edit, and only the second edit since July of 2004 (the first being to the nominated article itself).[2]

  • Delete, non-notable vanity conlang. —Korath (Talk) 00:21, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Deletishago. I better start an article to translate my vote. Gotta go. hydnjo talk 00:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, Pertinent to the article about net.art, also ties into visual poetry, codework and really the article is most interesting as documentation and example of a style of artistic technique. I don't understand why others in this thread are equating Mez's work with code poetry with a conlang. If one took a few minutes to read some of her work, the connections to conlang are almost non-existent. —Memexikon

    • User has no edits before this VFD was made. —TeknicTalk/Mail 05:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

      • Do not edit other users comments. See above.

    • Not true. I've been adding small edits to a few entries for some time now. Did just create an account, however if that's what you meant to say.

  • Keep, Obscurity is not a valid reason for deletion; consider a bird-watching guide with only the most common birds listed. I am an independent researcher at Indiana University and have been studying Mezangelle as a legitimate artistic style in the context of network formation. The style is referenced by multiple users across several locations in blogs and discussion boards and has the valuable qualities of distinctive form, unique name, and traceable dissemination across multiple internet locations. Unique, small, distinctive, labeled artistic styles have the benefit of allowing easy mapping of known (i.e. searchable in Google) links. Mapping searchable references to unique words is an effective tool for studying the dissemination of knowledge through the Internet and has value to research. Mezangelle is a genuine style used by multiple parties over a considerable period of time. Please leave the entry as a key means of communicating the definition of mezangelle to other researchers. 08:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)John Burgoon

    • User's first edit. Thryduulf 11:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Kill the socks delete Radiant_* 12:11, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete all articles that give me a headache from excessive use of jargon I mean, no original research, and we are not here to serve as a forum for communicating with whatever other researchers might actually exist. Soundguy99 02:02, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, never heard of it. They can't all be Verdurian . . . Wiwaxia 04:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's pretentious crap, but a lot of people take it seriously. Which is a good description of most of what gets called "Art" these days. If a form of expression has a big following, then it rates an article, no matter how stupid you think it is. ---Isaac R 22:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Original research, not notable, sockpuppet supported. Jayjg (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - original research - Tεxτurε 21:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

    • Comment: Again, mez here, the initial writer of the article under question. I'm resisting responding to any relevant comments or votes that do not adhere to officially stated Wikipedia Policy e.g. please do not bite the newcomers, wikiquette, no personal attacks, and civility. I'm also unkeen to respond to opinions or comments that aren't stated as recognised policy, such as referring to the content of the article as "not notable" or those votes based on material that could be considered spurious, speculative, or unsubstantiated eg "sock-puppet supported". I'm assuming those votes/actions/opinions that trangress those policies will be automatically discounted in the admin's final appraisal. What I am keen to address, however, is those comments and votes that do correspond to offical wikipedia policy and manage to successfully address the article without flippancy, sarcasm, or personal attacks. One of these comments/reasons is "original research", which is listed as a reason to support deletion votes. I'd like to suggest a reassessment of all votes based on this after considering the following information, which includes citations of relevant articles from 2003-2005 that list [at minimum] one peer-based review journal. I've also listed selected publications from this 2 year period [rather than a more comprehensive list from the decade preceding this] that have analysed or included mezangelle projects or exhibitions. The citations are not APA formatted, and include one of three New York Times articles involving mezangelle. Based on the citation-checking behaviour of the editors involved, I'm citing this evidence here for ease-of-access as it appears that they have not examined this material previous to voting:

    • Source texts used and analysis of mezangelle in The Writing Experiment: strategies for innovative creative writing by Hazel Smith, Allen & Unwin, March 2005 ISBN: 1741140153.

    • Mezangelle analysed by Stephanie Strickland in First Person New Media as Story, Performance, and Game. Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Pat Harrigan (Eds.) January 2004.

    • "Inappropriate Format][ing][: Craft-Orientation vs. Networked Content[s"] in the Journal of Digital Information, Volume 3 Issue 3 Hypertext Criticism: Writing about Hypertext.

    • Mezangelled Texts in _the >wartime< project_ which press included the following: Cornwall24, UK, January 22nd 2003. Graziarosa Villani, L'espresso, Italia, January 25th 2003. Tiscale Art, Italia, January 28th 2003. CTarkus, Tijuana Indymedia, México, February 1st 2003. R. Bosco / S. Caldana, CyberP@is, El Pais, Espagne, January 30th 2003. Matthew Mirapaul, New York Times, US, February 3rd 2003. der Standard, Österreich, February 3rd 2003. Graziarosa Villani, Liberazione, Italia, February 15th 2003. Antonio Riello, Dolce & Gabbana (art & web), Italia, February 2003. Euia, Espagne, February 2003. Repeat, Star Tribune, Minneapolis, US, February 9th 2003. Corriere della Sera, Italia, Febuary 14th 2003. TAZ, Berlin, Deutschland, February 18th 2003. Centre International d'Art Contemporian De Montréal, CA, March 2003. kopenhagen.DK, March 19th 2003. Liberation FR, March 29th 2003. Neural.it, June 29th 2003.

    • Mezangelle described/analysed in "Interferences: (Net.Writing) and the Practice of Codework" by Rita Raley in the Electronic Book Review.

    • The Language system mezangelle and mez works discussed in Culture Machine, "Deeper Into the Machine: The Future of Electronic Literature" by Katherine Hayles, Edition 5, 2003. Also in the Electronic Literature Organisation"State of the Arts" Symposium 2002 Book.Mez 15:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Gibberish. While we're at it, someone should do a VFD on mez as equally non-notable vanity. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 23:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. If this article were actually expanded to provide information to the reader on the subject, rather than just pointing a bunch of links to other places, it might be interesting. As it is, there's not much content there now, and ought to be deleted if not improved. Whig 06:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mez is thoughtful and creative. Mezangelle is poetic, unsettling, intriguing, and thought-provoking ... as the cited documentation reveals. I am not impressed by critics who seem like mere Yahoos, unable to make a coherent argument. I think Wikipedia should be open to creative investigations ... such as Mezangelle. Don't we have enough stifling institutions and processes in the world as it is? --[[User:Séamas Cain131.212.109.27 15:57, 13 May 2005 (UTC)Séamas Cain]] [3]

  • Keep. Not my cup of tea, but might stimulate organic (cyborganic?) growth of related articles. FreplySpang (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

No comments: