1548:. 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
1367:, 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
1247:) "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
2008:, 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.
553:"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?
1375:. 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.
868:. 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
1456:- 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. --
1501:
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
575:
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
1982:
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
1794:
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
1775:
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
969:
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
628:
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
722:
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
352:
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
1326:
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. =
2091:
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.
908:
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. —
1870:
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?
400:
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.
309:
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.
863:
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
1362:
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
2044:
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
804:
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.
255:
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.
2053:. 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.
1991:
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.
1084:, 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. —
2129:
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
2136:). 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
2100:
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
1414:
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
1747:
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.
1020:
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.
1749:
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
1371:. 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
192:
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
142:
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
2067:
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
134:: 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
1838:
1728:
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.--
1954:
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 "
2111:
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. --
891:
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.
1571:
1251:, 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
1236:
1228:
1224:
1220:
928:
per Becksguy and APK. If these notable news organizations felt it worthy of carrying/printing/disseminating the press release, then so be its notability. Sourced and valid.
1610:
1350:
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
123:
1342:- 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 -
872:. 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. —
839:
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.
1434:
1417:
197:
193:
275:
Substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Was it a publicity stunt? Was the outrage to be expected? Maybe. But it passes our notability guidelines.
644:
1232:
1126:
Monday, April 27, 2009 — announcing the cancelation of the planned exhibit due to the receipt of e-mails decrying the self-described "controversial" painting.
175:
1288:"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
860:
485:
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?
1758:
1415:
150:
143:
1960:
Related offers: / Get "The Audacity of Deceit," and learn about the looming hostile attack on Judeo-Christian values and freedoms Americans hold dear
90:
85:
1983:
was an effective one, as it received substantial coverage and created a controversy, as it has here on Knowledge (XXG). If you look closely at the
1757:, combined with my (admittedly amateur) evaluation of the work, suggests that it wouldn't qualify. Do we have a more politely worded equivalent of
94:
77:
1946:
exhibitors exhibited, rather than chickening out). It would seem that the only print appearance of his non-event was a short mention in the
1697:
1837:
The keep arguments convinced me. It has mention in major news papers, some of which have been mentioned and added to the article already.
1987:
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.
1708:
1624:
1585:
185:
April 24–27, 2009 — predictable "outrage" about "blasphemy" from anti-Obama bloggers, increased traffic to D'Antuono's personal website
791:
1526:
1523:
17:
949:
206:
1123:
Friday, April 24, 2009 — announcing the planned exhibit of a self-described "controversial" painting and inviting e-mails about it.
1113:
about non-notable artist Michael D'Antuono's non-notable painting "The Truth" which did not make news because it was not exhibited.
998:
1) It's from an NR blog page, 2) it's been cited in the article from day one, and 3) its being there from day one just reinforces
1507:
I find the current interpretation utterly sacrilegious. This is indeed a well sourced and ongoing event and as such, I vote keep.
603:
460:
368:
237:
to noting that the planned exhibit of D'Antuono's painting "The Truth" has been canceled (only print media mention of painting).
2084:
I believe that Boadwee's art has indeed been so covered, yes. I first encountered him back in the pre-blogospheric era, in the
1256:
1269:
733:
692:
665:
616:
563:
513:
473:
425:
381:
340:
1922:
as coming very close to the ultimate non-event. Unknown painter of kitsch creates possible contender for inclusion in the
1058:
per nom, author. Most references are rehashes of the press release. Many aren't even in English, which would seem to be a
785:
1876:
1433:
source for the claimed "overwhelming public outrage" was D'Antuono and a press release written by D'Antuono's publicist.
966:
591:
500:
159:
2238:
2197:
everything that is written, does not require an article here...every once in a while common sense has to play a part...
1062:
problem. The artist isn't notable and the event never happened. Recommend speedy since author agrees with deletion. --
36:
1351:
217:
2140:
and so on) had it not been for the Contemporary Art Center controversy, but he was notable as an artist before this.
2022:
Well maybe, but to me the media coverage of this work of acrylic art is hardly substantial. (Incidentally, when will
652:
2223:
2206:
2185:
2158:
2120:
2079:
2062:
2039:
2017:
1971:
1910:
1896:
1880:
1862:
1825:
1785:
1770:
1737:
1722:
1690:
1673:
1638:
1599:
1561:
1538:
1516:
1480:
1465:
1444:
1384:
1334:
1304:
1276:
1214:
1093:
1071:
1044:
1011:
986:
955:
918:
900:
881:
851:
831:
814:
796:
740:
717:
699:
672:
655:. (side note: I usually avoid articles where emotions run high, so I find this interrogation rather amusing/weird)
651:
of politicians of the United States of America." (emphasis mine) The artist thinks some people perceive Obama as a
638:
623:
585:
570:
548:
534:
520:
494:
480:
454:
432:
388:
362:
347:
319:
301:
284:
265:
249:
59:
1803:
which is pretty much what you argued. Simply saying it's "interesting" may invite some counter arguments (such as
2075:
2058:
2013:
1260:
1248:
724:
683:
656:
607:
554:
504:
464:
416:
372:
367:
A simple look at the article will see the LA Times & Washington Times is included as refs. Is the South Park
331:
280:
200:
156:
2237:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
629:
notability on Knowledge (XXG) and press releases and reprints of them are specifically excluded, for instance.
144:
Painter Michael D'Antuono To Unveil Controversial New Work in NYC's Union Square on Obama's 100th Day in Office
81:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1951:
1781:
228:
1461:
1942:
was going to unveil the opuscule, let alone any publicly funded gallery: D'Antuono was no Mapplethorpe (and
1872:
1715:
1631:
1592:
1332:
2148:
1815:
1663:
595:
213:
73:
65:
57:
1777:
2219:
2097:
1892:
1534:
1512:
261:
1652:
1021:
999:
869:
784:
since creator of article has supported its removal (because of non-event of its "planned" exhibition).
442:
539:
I've also seen a website of children's drawings of Obama, should it also be included on the template?
328:
2071:
2054:
2009:
1993:
1182:
1138:
that distributes press releases written by businesses that pay it to distribute their press releases.
1110:
713:
634:
581:
544:
490:
450:
406:
276:
233:
2176:
per nom. Seems to be a non-notable painting and coverage seems to be from one major press release.
1962:
etc etc so I see where they're coming from and start to wonder about donations of straitjackets. --
1804:
1648:
1425:
Issuers of news releases and not PR Newswire are solely responsible for the accuracy of the content.
777:
2202:
2023:
1979:
1745:
Conceivably notable as a very minor media non-event, reminiscent of the one or two years back over
1557:
1059:
822:-- Notability for a Knowledge (XXG) article requires more than just a flash in the pan news item.
2181:
2046:
1906:
1701:
1617:
1578:
1457:
1380:
1328:
1187:
1089:
1067:
1029:
1007:
971:
914:
896:
877:
827:
530:
297:
1489:
705:
131:
2141:
1923:
1808:
1754:
1750:
1686:
1656:
1440:
1402:
evidence that "as independent, reliable, and neutral analysts and publishers of information,"
1300:
1210:
1171:
810:
599:
245:
50:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
2215:
1958:" manages to work itself into a righteous lather over this; its is immediately followed by
1888:
1840:
1530:
1508:
1191:
932:
257:
224:
2194:
1244:
1081:
2116:
2035:
2001:
1967:
1766:
1733:
1407:
1195:
1160:
1141:
709:
630:
577:
540:
486:
446:
402:
171:
153:
1776:
and that it should be kept. (I hope this is what I do to say that I want to keep it!) =0)
1368:
576:
single non-notable representation of Obama would be considered part of his public image.
2103:
2198:
1553:
1359:
847:
358:
315:
1800:
1796:
1372:
1240:
865:
780:
unless or until the artist himself is worth an article (that survives AfD). Possibly
2177:
1988:
1955:
1902:
1376:
1364:
1085:
1063:
1003:
910:
892:
873:
823:
526:
293:
1997:
1682:
1475:
1436:
1296:
1206:
1135:
1120:
by D'Antuono's publicist, Noah G POP Fine Art Management, issued three days apart:
1117:
806:
241:
163:
135:
111:
2086:
2050:
1420:
1403:
1347:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1131:
194:'The Truth': D'Antuono Cancels Unveiling of Obama Painting Due to Public Outrage
147:
1252:
202:
that the planned exhibit of D'Antuono's painting "The Truth" has been canceled.
189:, and a self-reported 3,000 emails to D'Antuono protesting his planned exhibit.
2132:
2112:
2031:
1963:
1762:
1729:
1411:
594:
includes depictions of Obama. The 'See also' section and/or template includes
1419:
written by D'Antuono's publicist and distributed by the press release agency
1243:, scroll down to the bottom of the page, and look at note #4. (in regards to
292:
per nom and per author; all coverage seems to derive from one press release.
178:, to promote D'Antuono, and to drive traffic to D'Antuono's personal website
1984:
1502:
on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future.
1355:
1292:
1255:
articles for the LA Times. How is the blog's reliablilty any different than
841:
354:
311:
220:
tag requesting that the article not be tagged for deletion for several days.
1887:
The reason the art wasn't exhibited was because it caused a public outcry.
2005:
1901:
The "outrage" is documented primarily by the artist's own press release.
1807:), but you seem to have hit on the basic issues around sources. Welcome.
606:. Tell me how those articles are unlike the one I added to the template?
859:- per APK especially, and CoM. I found another RS, the Buffalo Examiner
463:, yet it survives with fewer sources. Also, a painting is not an event.
2027:
1978:
Hoary, I think you make some good arguments. But let's not forget that
1424:
2070:, it's clear the story of the painting was carried in many countries.
158:
about a planned 12-hour exhibit on April 29, 2009 in New York City's
1295:. Nor newsworthy enough for a Knowledge (XXG) encyclopedia article.
1148:
that distributes news, or in this instance, distributes, unaltered,
1024:
concerns people, not paintings, but the clincher clause anyway is -
647:
says "This category is for articles concerning the public image and
1522:
I would also like to add that this article has a number of related
1343:
1323:
1080:
Five established editors have voted to keep so far, so if this is
167:
1759:
Category:Non-events that make the media go apeshit for 15 minutes
1552:
enough sources to write a competent little start class article.
130:
This article about a non-notable painting should be deleted. Per
2231:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
2125:
Comparing this work to Mapplethorpe, Serrano, Serra, et al is a
1198:
1175:
1164:
680:
I would like to know the criteria for inclusion on the template.
2214:
Recentist PR puffery, overinflated by political sensitivities.
1926:, has PR hack spam news agencies with the announcement that he
162:
of D'Antuono's "controversial" painting "The Truth" (depicting
186:
179:
2026:
get a WP article? He's gone through a lot for it, or anyway
2093:
1932:
unveils his highly controversial new painting, "The Truth"
1152:-distributed press releases written by businesses that pay
1938:(my emphases). And then he changes his mind. Note that no
1396:- The National Review Online is not a newspaper. There is
525:
Are there any links to this page not manufactured by APK?
138:
three days apart about a non-event that did not happen):
2068:
1493:
209:
118:
107:
103:
99:
1219:
An LA Times blog is considered reliable according to
2107:-- got not just more but hugely more coverage than
415:per mentions in the LA Times and Washington Times.
1488:-I'm not sure if its me or not, but it seems that
1028:. Unsure if that's a reasonable conclusion here.
353:deleted, given the trivial, non-notability here.
327:Which sources are unreliable conservative blogs?
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2241:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1572:list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions
1498:
1284:- The issue is notability not reliability. The
704:Well, if this is your way of finding out then
1936:on the 100th day of Barack Obama's presidency
1611:list of Politics-related deletion discussions
645:Category:Public image of American politicians
8:
1358:for the White House and the administration,
1928:may raise more questions than answers when
176:First 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency
1605:
1566:
1934:on the South Plaza of NYC's Union Square
1698:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Barack Obama
1609:: This debate has been included in the
1570:: This debate has been included in the
223:April 29, 2009 — conservative columnist
592:Public image of Barack Obama#Depictions
501:Public image of Barack Obama#Depictions
174:) to cash in on the media hoopla about
1696:This discussion has been included in
1259:article he published April 29, 2009?
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1156:to distribute their press releases.
1026:people likely to remain low-profile
503:and the see also section below it.
970:yet see a source to support that.
24:
965:. Plenty of sourcing available.
604:About Last Night... (South Park)
1700:'s list of related deletions.
205:April 27, 2009, 6:31 PM EDT —
1:
1492:has been changed. It used to
1322:APK pretty much said it all.
1186:reference is one-fifth of an
218:Template:Under construction
187:http://www.dantuonoarts.com
180:http://www.dantuonoarts.com
2258:
2028:a lot has gone through him
1194:, citing Mark Hemingway's
2096:comments are unkind, but
1346:), that's news. When the
371:trivial and non-notable?
227:devotes 168 words of her
2234:Please do not modify it.
2224:16:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
2207:15:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
2186:08:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
2159:13:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
2121:08:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
2080:07:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
2063:07:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
2040:06:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
2018:05:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
1972:01:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
1911:01:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
1801:verifiability of sources
1445:14:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
1412:news aggregator websites
1305:14:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
1167:entry by Mark Hemingway.
60:03:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
1897:23:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
1881:20:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
1863:17:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
1826:15:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
1786:15:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
1771:03:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
1738:16:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
1723:04:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
1691:03:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
1674:03:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
1639:01:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
1600:01:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
1562:23:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
1539:17:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
1517:23:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
1481:19:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
1466:13:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
1385:11:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
1335:09:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
1277:05:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
1272:straight up now tell me
1215:04:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
1094:02:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
1072:02:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
1045:22:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
1012:00:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
987:00:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
956:22:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
919:23:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
901:22:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
882:22:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
852:21:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
832:21:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
815:21:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
797:19:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
741:20:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
736:straight up now tell me
718:20:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
700:19:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
695:straight up now tell me
673:19:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
668:straight up now tell me
639:19:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
624:19:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
619:straight up now tell me
586:19:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
571:19:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
566:straight up now tell me
549:19:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
535:19:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
521:18:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
516:straight up now tell me
495:18:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
481:18:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
476:straight up now tell me
455:18:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
433:18:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
428:straight up now tell me
389:19:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
384:straight up now tell me
363:19:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
348:18:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
343:straight up now tell me
320:18:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
302:18:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
285:18:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
266:18:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
250:17:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
1505:
1196:National Review Online
1161:National Review Online
643:(edit conflict) Also,
596:Barack the Magic Negro
231:column on page A18 of
1994:Jean-Michel Basquiat
1753:, but my reading of
1647:as non-notable, per
1183:The Washington Times
1136:press release agency
723:wasting space here.
590:I'll repeat myself.
234:The Washington Times
214:The Truth (painting)
74:The Truth (painting)
66:The Truth (painting)
1980:Robert Mapplethorpe
2047:Fountain (Duchamp)
1948:Washington Moonie,
1873:Ethicoaestheticist
1178:entry by David Ng.
844:
44:The result was
1924:Museum of Bad Art
1751:Museum of Bad Art
1725:
1641:
1614:
1602:
1575:
1290:Los Angeles Times
1286:Los Angeles Times
1172:Los Angeles Times
850:
840:
600:Super Obama World
2249:
2236:
2155:
2152:
2145:
1859:
1856:
1853:
1850:
1847:
1844:
1822:
1819:
1812:
1720:
1713:
1706:
1695:
1670:
1667:
1660:
1636:
1629:
1622:
1615:
1597:
1590:
1583:
1576:
1479:
1369:reliable sources
1274:
1266:
1192:Amanda Carpenter
1041:
1035:
983:
977:
944:
846:
794:
788:
738:
730:
697:
689:
670:
662:
621:
613:
568:
560:
518:
510:
478:
470:
430:
422:
386:
378:
345:
337:
225:Amanda Carpenter
121:
115:
97:
53:
34:
2257:
2256:
2252:
2251:
2250:
2248:
2247:
2246:
2245:
2239:deletion review
2232:
2153:
2150:
2143:
2104:Merda d'artista
2072:ChildofMidnight
2055:ChildofMidnight
2010:ChildofMidnight
2002:Jackson Pollock
1857:
1854:
1851:
1848:
1845:
1842:
1820:
1817:
1810:
1716:
1709:
1702:
1668:
1665:
1658:
1632:
1625:
1618:
1593:
1586:
1579:
1474:
1354:is a glorified
1352:Press Secretary
1270:
1262:
1174:reference is a
1163:reference is a
1116:There were two
1039:
1033:
981:
975:
954:
942:
792:
786:
734:
726:
693:
685:
666:
658:
617:
609:
564:
556:
514:
506:
474:
466:
426:
418:
382:
374:
341:
333:
277:ChildofMidnight
172:Crown of Thorns
117:
88:
72:
69:
51:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2255:
2253:
2244:
2243:
2227:
2226:
2209:
2188:
2170:
2169:
2168:
2167:
2166:
2165:
2164:
2163:
2162:
2161:
2065:
1975:
1974:
1916:
1915:
1914:
1913:
1884:
1883:
1865:
1831:
1830:
1829:
1828:
1789:
1788:
1778:Swimmerfreak94
1773:
1740:
1726:
1693:
1681:per deleters.
1676:
1642:
1603:
1564:
1542:
1541:
1497:
1496:
1483:
1473:- Not notable
1468:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1388:
1387:
1360:spin doctoring
1337:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1249:New York Times
1204:
1203:
1202:
1179:
1168:
1157:
1139:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1124:
1118:press releases
1114:
1075:
1074:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1015:
1014:
990:
989:
959:
958:
947:
922:
921:
903:
885:
884:
854:
834:
817:
799:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
641:
537:
436:
435:
410:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
350:
304:
287:
269:
268:
239:
238:
221:
203:
196:on PR Newswire
190:
183:
136:press releases
128:
127:
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2254:
2242:
2240:
2235:
2229:
2228:
2225:
2221:
2217:
2213:
2210:
2208:
2204:
2200:
2196:
2192:
2191:Strong Delete
2189:
2187:
2183:
2179:
2175:
2172:
2171:
2160:
2157:
2156:
2147:
2146:
2139:
2135:
2134:
2128:
2124:
2123:
2122:
2118:
2114:
2110:
2106:
2105:
2099:
2095:
2090:
2088:
2083:
2082:
2081:
2077:
2073:
2069:
2066:
2064:
2060:
2056:
2052:
2048:
2043:
2042:
2041:
2037:
2033:
2029:
2025:
2024:Keith Boadwee
2021:
2020:
2019:
2015:
2011:
2007:
2003:
1999:
1995:
1990:
1989:Richard Serra
1986:
1981:
1977:
1976:
1973:
1969:
1965:
1961:
1957:
1956:WorldNetDaily
1953:
1949:
1945:
1941:
1937:
1935:
1931:
1925:
1921:
1918:
1917:
1912:
1908:
1904:
1900:
1899:
1898:
1894:
1890:
1886:
1885:
1882:
1878:
1874:
1869:
1866:
1864:
1861:
1860:
1839:
1836:
1833:
1832:
1827:
1824:
1823:
1814:
1813:
1806:
1802:
1798:
1793:
1792:
1791:
1790:
1787:
1783:
1779:
1774:
1772:
1768:
1764:
1760:
1756:
1752:
1748:
1744:
1741:
1739:
1735:
1731:
1727:
1724:
1721:
1719:
1714:
1712:
1707:
1705:
1699:
1694:
1692:
1688:
1684:
1680:
1677:
1675:
1672:
1671:
1662:
1661:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1643:
1640:
1637:
1635:
1630:
1628:
1623:
1621:
1612:
1608:
1604:
1601:
1598:
1596:
1591:
1589:
1584:
1582:
1573:
1569:
1565:
1563:
1559:
1555:
1551:
1547:
1544:
1543:
1540:
1536:
1532:
1528:
1525:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1504:
1503:
1495:
1491:
1487:
1484:
1482:
1477:
1472:
1469:
1467:
1463:
1459:
1458:Johnnyturk888
1455:
1452:
1451:
1446:
1442:
1438:
1435:
1432:
1431:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1416:
1413:
1409:
1405:
1401:
1400:
1395:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1386:
1382:
1378:
1374:
1373:verifiability
1370:
1366:
1365:Bernie Madoff
1361:
1357:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1341:
1338:
1336:
1333:
1330:
1325:
1321:
1318:
1317:
1306:
1302:
1298:
1294:
1291:
1287:
1283:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1275:
1273:
1268:
1267:
1265:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1222:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1205:
1200:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1184:
1180:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1140:
1137:
1133:
1130:
1125:
1122:
1121:
1119:
1115:
1112:
1111:news articles
1108:
1107:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1054:
1053:
1046:
1043:
1042:
1036:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1001:
997:
994:
993:
992:
991:
988:
985:
984:
978:
968:
964:
961:
960:
957:
953:
951:
946:
941:
939:
935:
931:
927:
924:
923:
920:
916:
912:
907:
904:
902:
898:
894:
890:
887:
886:
883:
879:
875:
871:
867:
862:
858:
855:
853:
849:
843:
838:
837:Strong delete
835:
833:
829:
825:
821:
818:
816:
812:
808:
803:
800:
798:
795:
789:
783:
782:speedy delete
779:
775:
774:Strong delete
772:
771:
742:
739:
737:
732:
731:
729:
721:
720:
719:
715:
711:
707:
703:
702:
701:
698:
696:
691:
690:
688:
681:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
671:
669:
664:
663:
661:
654:
650:
646:
642:
640:
636:
632:
627:
626:
625:
622:
620:
615:
614:
612:
605:
601:
597:
593:
589:
588:
587:
583:
579:
574:
573:
572:
569:
567:
562:
561:
559:
552:
551:
550:
546:
542:
538:
536:
532:
528:
524:
523:
522:
519:
517:
512:
511:
509:
502:
498:
497:
496:
492:
488:
484:
483:
482:
479:
477:
472:
471:
469:
462:
458:
457:
456:
452:
448:
444:
440:
439:
438:
437:
434:
431:
429:
424:
423:
421:
414:
411:
408:
404:
399:
396:
390:
387:
385:
380:
379:
377:
370:
366:
365:
364:
360:
356:
351:
349:
346:
344:
339:
338:
336:
330:
326:
323:
322:
321:
317:
313:
308:
305:
303:
299:
295:
291:
288:
286:
282:
278:
274:
271:
270:
267:
263:
259:
254:
253:
252:
251:
247:
243:
236:
235:
230:
226:
222:
219:
215:
211:
208:
204:
201:
198:
195:
191:
188:
184:
181:
177:
173:
169:
165:
161:
157:
155:
151:
149:
145:
141:
140:
139:
137:
133:
125:
120:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
92:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
67:
64:
62:
61:
58:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
2233:
2230:
2211:
2190:
2173:
2149:
2144:freshacconci
2142:
2138:The Simpsons
2137:
2131:
2126:
2108:
2102:
2085:
1998:Keith Haring
1959:
1947:
1943:
1939:
1933:
1929:
1927:
1919:
1871:Ludicrous.--
1867:
1841:
1834:
1816:
1811:freshacconci
1809:
1746:
1742:
1717:
1710:
1703:
1678:
1664:
1659:freshacconci
1657:
1644:
1633:
1626:
1619:
1606:
1594:
1587:
1580:
1567:
1549:
1545:
1506:
1500:
1499:
1485:
1470:
1453:
1429:
1428:
1398:
1397:
1393:
1339:
1319:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1271:
1263:
1261:
1181:
1105:
1104:
1098:
1055:
1037:
1031:
1025:
995:
979:
973:
962:
948:
945:
937:
933:
929:
925:
905:
888:
856:
836:
819:
801:
781:
773:
735:
727:
725:
694:
686:
684:
679:
667:
659:
657:
648:
618:
610:
608:
565:
557:
555:
515:
507:
505:
499:Um, look at
475:
467:
465:
427:
419:
417:
412:
397:
383:
375:
373:
342:
334:
332:
324:
306:
289:
272:
240:
232:
212:the article
168:Jesus Christ
164:Barack Obama
160:Union Square
129:
52:Juliancolton
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
2216:Plutonium27
2051:Piss Christ
1889:Smallman12q
1653:WP:ONEEVENT
1531:Smallman12q
1509:Smallman12q
1486:Strong Keep
1421:PR Newswire
1404:PR Newswire
1348:White House
1239:. Click on
1154:PR Newswire
1150:PR Newswire
1146:news agency
1132:PR Newswire
1109:mainstream
1022:WP:ONEEVENT
1000:WP:ONEEVENT
870:WP:ONEEVENT
857:Strong Keep
443:WP:ONEEVENT
258:Grundle2600
207:Grundel2600
199:and Reuters
148:PR Newswire
2133:Tilted Arc
1805:WP:ILIKEIT
1797:notability
1649:WP:NOTNEWS
1103:There are
866:notability
778:WP:NOTNEWS
710:Drawn Some
649:perception
631:Drawn Some
578:Drawn Some
541:Drawn Some
487:Drawn Some
447:Drawn Some
403:Drawn Some
229:Hot Button
2199:Modernist
2109:The Truth
1985:Mona Lisa
1950:and even
1554:Wikidemon
1410:, or the
1356:publicist
1293:newspaper
1060:WP:NONENG
2178:Brothejr
2006:Van Gogh
1903:PhGustaf
1527:articles
1490:WP:NTEMP
1377:Becksguy
1086:Becksguy
1082:speedied
1064:Scjessey
1004:PhGustaf
950:wuz here
911:Becksguy
893:PhGustaf
874:Becksguy
824:DreamGuy
706:WP:POINT
682:Me too.
527:PhGustaf
294:PhGustaf
132:WP:NTEMP
124:View log
1940:gallery
1743:Comment
1718:Shalott
1683:Johnbod
1634:Shalott
1595:Shalott
1546:Neutral
1476:Splette
1437:Newross
1423:says: "
1408:Reuters
1394:Comment
1340:Comment
1297:Newross
1282:Comment
1207:Newross
1142:Reuters
1099:Comment
996:Comment
906:Comment
889:Comment
807:Hekerui
653:Messiah
369:episode
329:Orphan?
325:Comment
242:Newross
216:with a
210:creates
170:with a
154:Reuters
91:protect
86:history
2212:Delete
2195:WP:UCS
2174:Delete
2098:others
2030:.) --
1920:Delete
1868:Delete
1679:Delete
1645:Delete
1471:Delete
1454:Delete
1427:" The
1245:WP:SPS
1235:, and
1201:entry.
1188:column
1056:Delete
967:Here's
820:Delete
802:Delete
602:, and
459:So is
441:Still
398:Delete
307:Delete
290:Delete
119:delete
95:delete
46:delete
2127:gross
2113:Hoary
2032:Hoary
1964:Hoary
1952:there
1858:Focus
1763:Hoary
1761:? --
1730:Elvey
1344:Vista
1324:Blogs
1144:is a
1134:is a
787:LotLE
122:) – (
112:views
104:watch
100:links
16:<
2220:talk
2203:talk
2193:per
2182:talk
2154:talk
2151:talk
2117:talk
2094:Some
2076:talk
2059:talk
2049:and
2036:talk
2014:talk
2004:and
1968:talk
1907:talk
1893:talk
1877:talk
1835:Keep
1821:talk
1818:talk
1799:and
1782:talk
1767:talk
1755:this
1734:talk
1704:Lady
1687:talk
1669:talk
1666:talk
1651:and
1620:Lady
1607:Note
1581:Lady
1568:Note
1558:talk
1535:talk
1524:news
1513:talk
1462:talk
1441:talk
1430:only
1399:zero
1381:talk
1320:Keep
1301:talk
1257:this
1241:WP:V
1211:talk
1199:blog
1176:blog
1170:The
1165:blog
1159:The
1106:zero
1090:talk
1068:talk
1032:Banj
1008:talk
974:Banj
963:Keep
936:LLST
926:Keep
915:talk
897:talk
878:talk
861:here
848:talk
842:Tvoz
828:talk
811:talk
793:talk
776:per
714:talk
635:talk
582:talk
545:talk
531:talk
491:talk
461:this
451:talk
413:Keep
407:talk
359:talk
355:Tarc
316:talk
312:Tarc
298:talk
281:talk
273:Keep
262:talk
246:talk
152:and
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
2087:Eye
1944:his
1550:are
1494:say
1329:Mgm
1264:APK
1190:by
1030:--
972:--
728:APK
687:APK
660:APK
611:APK
558:APK
508:APK
468:APK
420:APK
376:APK
335:APK
166:as
146:on
48:. –
2222:)
2205:)
2184:)
2119:)
2078:)
2061:)
2038:)
2016:)
2000:,
1996:,
1970:)
1930:he
1909:)
1895:)
1879:)
1784:)
1769:)
1736:)
1711:of
1689:)
1655:.
1627:of
1613:.
1588:of
1574:.
1560:)
1537:)
1515:)
1478::)
1464:)
1443:)
1406:,
1383:)
1303:)
1253:70
1231:,
1227:,
1223:,
1213:)
1092:)
1070:)
1040:oi
1010:)
1002:.
982:oi
917:)
899:)
880:)
830:)
813:)
716:)
708:.
637:)
598:,
584:)
547:)
533:)
493:)
453:)
445:.
361:)
318:)
300:)
283:)
264:)
248:)
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
56:|
2218:(
2201:(
2180:(
2115:(
2089:'
2074:(
2057:(
2034:(
2012:(
1966:(
1905:(
1891:(
1875:(
1855:m
1852:a
1849:e
1846:r
1843:D
1780:(
1765:(
1732:(
1685:(
1616:—
1577:—
1556:(
1533:(
1529:.
1511:(
1460:(
1439:(
1379:(
1331:|
1299:(
1237:5
1233:4
1229:3
1225:2
1221:1
1209:(
1088:(
1066:(
1038:b
1034:e
1006:(
980:b
976:e
952:@
943:▼
940:R
938:✰
934:A
930:-
913:(
895:(
876:(
845:/
826:(
809:(
790:×
712:(
633:(
580:(
543:(
529:(
489:(
449:(
409:)
405:(
357:(
314:(
296:(
279:(
260:(
244:(
182:.
126:)
116:(
114:)
76:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.