This article was nominated for deletion on 10 September 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.
A fact from Sutton twin towns mural appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 September 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
Some of the references seem not to be to reliable independent sources, eg
[1]
and
[2]SovalValtos (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they were added by a very experienced editor (who has made 65,000 edits), so I am sure they are fit for purpose. A P Monblat (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stop gap sources. These guys have been around the block and do get commissions. I assume we can find better, and I was not (at this point) really going to the notability of the artists as though this were an article about them. This is only peripheral to the murals. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Being experienced is not really a guarantee for anything (I should know :-) ). "Award-winning artist" is an empty phrase, and sourcing that to his own blog is normally not done. For most of his wins, I couldn't find a single source outside his blog, indicating that they are probably not really notable awards and/or that he won them as part of a group, not individually. In any case, the credentials of the artists are not that important in judging the notability of the work, they are certainly not notable enough to consider every work they made as automatically notable. Fram (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've not done the research that Fram has done. I don't have an opinion about the awards notability. I also agree that it is peripheral on the notability of the murals. I am fairly confident that we've found most (if not all) of the one line sources. I imagine that there was reportage in 1993 when they were created; but if it exists somebody is probably going to have to parse through 20 year old articles to find them. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added one more source, and will keep looking for more, but, as noted already, most of the reportage would have been in 1993 before the Internet age got into its stride. A P Monblat (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to give the article a better chance of being kept, you'll need further sources about this mural, not about other things these artists did. Fram (talk) 13:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This artwork does not seem to be a mural at all, at least according to the Wikipedia definition. Where is there a citation that it is specifically a mural rather than seven picture painted on plywood hung on two walls?SovalValtos (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources in the article all use the word "mural." Including the artist's own page. Is the wikipedia definition relevant or controlling? You have a reliable source that says they aren't a mural? If there is a documented controversy, it ought to be put in the article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article was nominated for deletion on 10 September 2014. The result of the discussion was keep.
