Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evoke (Art Group)

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. --Tikiwont 09:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evoke (Art Group)

Group with no claims of notability. Corvus cornix 22:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it's prett well known in the community with many ties with the deviantART community. It's been around for quite a few years --Wilfio 00:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reliable sources for that fact. Corvus cornix 00:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources have been added to the article. More are on the way.--RevenantPrime 18:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evoke is quite a phenomenon in the cultural identity of DeviantART. As such, most of the information about the group falls under the category of Self Publishable Sources. The trend in online graphics and design these days is one which is not widely written about in literary circles, yet this does not mean it should go unnoticed. Here are some links showing the popularity/public knowledge of the group among the people of DeviantART and other sites:

http://news.deviantart.com/article/31946/

Evoke frequently gets awards from the DeviantART community for outstanding work, ie:

http://lost-exile.deviantart.com/art/Castle-Of-Fables-68717808

"Daily Deviations" are a rare award on DeviantART, yet Evoke is known for garnering multiple ones with each exhibition.

A simple google search for "EvokeOne" will yield thousands of DA member pages and journals, showing its established nature.

Evoke is a large phenomenon at PhireBrush, an online graphics magazine: http://daily.phirebrush.com/index.php?tag=evokeone

Evoke's members have garnered numerous awards. This article is in a preliminary stage at the moment and so not all have been listed. One artist has had her work published (work for Evoke) in the Expose series by Ballistic Press.

The fact here is this - digital art has almost no attention on wikipedia, despite being a large and growing cultural phenomenon. The only brief mentions of it are concerning DeviantART and a very very dated article on Digital Art in general. Modern day artwork does not fall into either of those categories. And so, we have to rely on Self Publishable Sources for writing about the new digital cultural phenomenon. It is not something that is going to "go away" because there are no books written about it. --RevenantPrime 7:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC-5)

I think it is important to keep this article based on the large lack of information on the subject. Perhaps the members of Evoke could write a larger article about the new digital art scene at large, and mention Evoke in the process? Or perhaps just by expanding the article (which is just a stub at the moment) it could have enough backing to stand as something people should know about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RevenantPrime (talk • contribs) 01:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. "Lack of published information" about a subject is a reason to eliminate it from WP, not a reason to include it. --- tqbf 03:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there "published information" about a site such as DeviantART? So far as I know, there are no books about it. So we resort to Self Publishable Materials, which are allowed for use given the fact that:

Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

   * it is relevant to their notability;
   * it is not contentious;
   * it is not unduly self-serving;
   * it does not involve claims about third parties;
   * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

None of the sources for Evoke that are being used violate ANY of these terms of use for SELF PUBLISHABLE SOURCES. We will revise the article to fit the standards of a quality encyclopedia article (it is rudimentary right now - we cannot write a whole article in one day) but it does NOT violate the terms of use for SELF PUBLISHABLE SOURCES. RevenantPrime 1:18AM (UTC-5)

Whether they are self-published sources does not matter, what matters is the lack of reliable sources. Corvus cornix 17:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-published information is always a source of last resort, and an article based entirely on self-published sources is not appropriate for Wikipedia. (see WP:SELFPUB, partially quoted above). The one reliable source given (MTV Take-Action-Make-Art competition) makes no mention of this online group. --Phirazo 18:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Work is currently being done to gather more widely published sources with connections to the group. The problem with finding published sources specifically mentioning Evoke is that the group itself is non-profit. Thus, group members using Evoke work to win awards/etc are unlikely to connect it with their affiliation to the design hub. Concerning the MTV-TAMA Competition, that was used as an example of an award garnered by a member of the group, whose name IS mentioned. Perhaps linking to his Evoke member profile would make this source more usable? Would it be okay to gather a team of people to make a professional article about this group, as well as the online art scene? RevenantPrime 1:46PM, Nov 9 2007 (UTC-5) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.116.36 (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment aren't you in effect proposing to form a team of people to do original research, to make the article itself a primary source? It sounds like a better approach would be to form a team of people to get Evoke recognized in reliable sources which could then be cited to justify the article. It sounds like you're conceding that you can't source notability for this article; notability is defined by reliable sources.--- tqbf 18:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not exactly original research. More a collection of materials already out there - i.e. citations from published sources relating to the contents of the article. Thus, the article would become a good source of information on the totality of the information related to the group and online-art, which is, at the moment, quite disorganized. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't believe, since it would not make any original claims, that such an article would be considered original research.

*Idea- although perhaps an article about Evoke solely may not me of general use to Wikipedia, an article about groups such as Evoke, DepthCore, Phirbrush, CGTalk, etc - groups which are in and of themselves self published material. They are a widespread phenomenon - when you go to New York and see an iPod ad, or you see a spiffy Nike commercial or Nokia phone design, it is probably someone in one of these groups behind it. One problem with writing an article in a FREE encyclopedia on this material is that much of the material is heavily copyrighted. Perhaps using some work from Evoke as an example, work that could be released from copyright (I could arrange for this), could form the basis for an article on this growing cultural phenomenon? Maybe mention the group in the larger context of this largely unmentioned subject.RevenantPrime 1:57PM, Nov 9 2007 (UTC-5) —Preceding comment was added at 18:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission - long story short, it isn't enough that a copyright holder allows use on Wikipedia only, the copyright holder must release the work under a free license (typically GFDL, Creative Commons (but commercial use must be allowed), or the public domain). However, non-free media can be used in Wikipedia under the doctrine of fair use (see WP:NFC), so it is not necessary to get permission. --Phirazo 03:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read this information and, as an artist myself, am quite familiar with Wikipedia's policy on copyright. Some members of the group have volunteered to play lower resolution, watermarked versions of their work under public domain or Creative Commons licenses so that they may be used as examples for a possibly broader article on digital art as a whole.--RevenantPrime 18:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but could you provide any sources for the assertion that members of groups like this have developed iPods ads, Nike commercials or Nokia phone designs? I'm pretty sure these are all developed by in-house designers or design agencies. I don't see how a group like this has anything to do with it. AlistairMcMillan 20:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course most of that work is done by in-house designers and design agencies. People in such agencies are also often found in this type of group. It is sort of like a graphics collective where people are picked out of the group when they are good enough to become professional and work for a group such as Platinum-FMD (a for-profit graphics group). In any case, some members are active in both commercial and personal endeavors, here are a few sites of people in Evoke and DepthCORE (a similar project to Evoke) active in profit and group activities:

http://www.superlover.com.au/

http://www.shinybinary.com

http://hejz.com/

http://www.aeiko.net/

http://www.colorbunch.com/

http://www.dopaminart.com/home

http://sumeco.net/

http://www.xtrabold.net/index.html

http://www.crisvector.com/

http://www.jesar-one.com/start.html

http://andrewhefter.com/index.php

RevenantPrime 01:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're still discussing this article, and since you have two contradictory votes in the debate, can you <strike></strike> the text of the vote you don't currently support? --- tqbf 01:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Article has shown that there are reliable sources to back it up, and there are more sources being located to corroborate information for a broader article on online digital art.--RevenantPrime 18:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)--RevenantPrime 03:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Ted, are you Ted Yavuzkurt, a co-founder of this group? If so, you should disclose your WP:COI. If not, I apologize. --- tqbf 18:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - where should I post that? I am merely acting as a compiler of information for the article as most other in the group/with knowledge of it do not know how to edit such an article. The text contained is primarily written by others who have submitted to me by email. In fact the whole idea to start the article was via someone sending me an email saying I should do an article on digital art groups and such since Wiki is deficient in the area.--RevenantPrime 19:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - perhaps I may not be the best person to post up the contents of this article. Since it seems like it will be deleted, do you think it would be a conflict of interest to write a broader article about the digital-art scene, including references to Evoke? Or perhaps I could have my material perused by a third party who could then edit and post what he/she feels is neutral? (I don't feel I've posted anything in this article that would qualify as vanity - most things are backed up).--RevenantPrime 19:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. WP already has coverage of DeviantART; maybe that's a good place to start, and perhaps some of that content should be factored out into a seperate artgroup article. A good faith start might be to concede (via a delete here) that the article you wrote covering your own group isn't the place to do that.--- tqbf 20:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - all the current sourcing in this article remains WP:SPS, or not relevant to the actual article. None of the "keep" in this debate addresses the argument for deleting it. --- tqbf 18:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article cannot be considered entirely neutral (despite most content being posted verbatim from emails by others). Will integrate some content with article on DeviantArt and possibly a separate article on online artgroups in general.RevenantPrime 20:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from the obvious conflict of interest, self-promotion issues, no notability established. AlistairMcMillan 20:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE In the interest of WP:BITE --- The article's original author and proponent here has conceded the issue. --- tqbf 20:21, 12 November 2007 (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.