Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wild style

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 keep. —Korath (Talk) 01:50, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Wild style

wild style is a crazy form of graffiti, most of the time it is very coplicated and hard to read by people who are not familiar with tath typical style, it also includes arrows, spikes, and other things, depending on the style — which (to the best of my understanding) makes it sound entirely conventional. If this article is attempting to say anything worthwhile, it's impossibly incoherent. -- Hoary 02:00, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

• [Wildstyle graffiti] gets me 11,000 Google hits. Redirect to graffiti, unless someone can rewrite this encyclopedically. Meelar (talk) 02:14, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup and Keep (or merge) notable forms of graffiti. Graffiti doesn't say anything about this particular style. Kappa 03:47, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) (edited 08:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC))
  • Comment But (so far as I succeed in understanding the limp prose of Wild style), roughly half of the photos in Graffiti show "wild style". I don't claim any expertise, but it seems to me to be a kind of default mode among non-stenciled, western (or western-influenced) fairly large-scale exterior urban graffiti. If the article doesn't yet say (in words) anything about it, it could easily do so. -- Hoary 06:19, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
    • It could, but it doesn't. This article says something that needs to be said, although maybe it doesn't say it very well, so it should be cleaned up and merged or kept. Kappa 08:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Graffiti doesn't talk about this "style", but I can't find a reason why this is even considered its own unique style. Until graffiti is broken down into cubist, neoclassical, postmodern, etc... we don't need a single style article on its own. Feco 04:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes I guess graffiti is inferior to real art, no point going into detail about it. Kappa 05:16, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • No, it's just that material about this particular style should go into the graffiti article until there's plenty of material to split off. If and when that happens, I'll change my vote. Nothing against graffiti. Meelar (talk) 06:12, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
      • So what is the purpose of a redirect? Just to tell people not to make a separate article? Kappa
        • Yes. Information does not want to be alone. If there's little to say about a topic, merge it with a related topic, for easier reference. E.g. School pranks. Items can be broken out if and when they get too big, but for several topics that isn't likely. Radiant_* 11:09, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
          • Wow, deletionists really are pure evil. Kappa 21:03, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • Er, that was actually a mergist point of view. I assume you know the difference? Radiant_* 07:59, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
              • Merging isn't specially evil, but these votes are redirect without merging, which to me equates to a "delete and don't allow to be recreated" vote. Kappa 11:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                • Well, the reason I said that is because there isn't any information in the article as it currently stands. It does allow for recreation, as always. Radiant_* 09:12, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Wild Style. Tuf-Kat 08:02, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Wild Style, and add a link to Graffiti from there. I am not convinced that 'wild style' is really a special form of graffiti, I suppose Alkivar would be the one to ask. Radiant_* 11:09, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Er, isn't Wild style the proper Wikipedia-style capitalization? FreplySpang 18:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Er, oops, yes you are right. So probably the correct way of doing it would be to delete this, and then rename Wild Style to Wild style to preserve edit history. Radiant_* 19:41, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
      • The movie's name is correctly capitalized. Kappa 21:03, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Movies are capitalized, so Wild Style is correct and wild style a reasonable redirect. Tuf-Kat 02:41, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Wild Style. Megan1967 05:48, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- the style of graffiti, as protrayed in that movie, is a different subject from the movie itself. Disambiguate. --Christofurio 14:53, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as the person who got Graffiti to FA status please allow me to elaborate. There are many "styles" of graffiti, most notably the "Wild Style" most popularized by NY City writers and "Wiked Style" most popularized by Californian artits. Although these are similar in that they are both graffiti and block lettering, there are distinct differences. The earlier comment about Cubist, Modernism etc is actually not far from accurate here, Wild Style is more aggressive and angular in origin whereas Wicked Style is more futuristic and rounded. Graffiti historians and enthusiasts can generally identify where a writer learned/who influenced their work based on the form of their characters. Both of these styles were originally redlinked from Graffiti although it would appear someone came through and attempted to start a stub. I feel this stub should be kept and allowed to expand, rather than redirected to the movie which although uses the name is a poor target IMO.  ALKIVAR™ 19:35, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, then, as per ALKIVAR and Christofurio. FreplySpang (talk) 03:13, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A quick google search will show that its a popular style of graffiti. Paradiso 11:22, 30 Mar 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.