Talk:Time-Based Art Festival

Don't agree with merge proposal

This article was split off from the PICA because the Time-Based Art Festival is notable enough to have its own article[: It is "is the only festival of its kind in North America" and on that basis notable for inclusion in Wikipedia."] People searching for the TBA Festival are not necessarily going to know to search for PICA (Portland Institute for Contemporary Art), especially if they are not from Portland or familiar with such festivals otherwise. As the only festival like it in North America (according to the article), it is notable enough for an article in Wikipedia [and of notability beyond Oregon.]. I created it as a [festival-]stub; it needs development by other editors over time. [The editor who added the merge prop. template did not develop argument for such on this talk page. I've also added the talkheader.] --NYScholar (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC) [Updated in brackets. I have to turn to other non-Wikipedia work offline and cannot do more with these articles than I have already done. --NYScholar (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)] [added in brackets: please see also: Talk:Portland Institute for Contemporary Art, where proposer added discussion originally. --NYScholar (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC); --NYScholar (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)]

If this were not a separate article, it would not have a listing in Festivals in Oregon. It deserves such a listing on the basis of its notability as a North American festival as well. Its listing in festivals enables people to find it in such a larger context as well. Being a paragraph in PICA does not enable that. --NYScholar (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, Nobody is planning to merge anything anytime soon. Usually these things drag on for months before someone acts on them. BTW, your posting style is very hard to read. Also, as "The editor who added the merge prop. template", I may be mistaken, but I find your tone a bit accusatory. Forgive me if I'm mistaken. As for not developing an argument on the talk page, I posted on the talk page that the "discuss" link in the merge template goes to, which is the PICA page, as you have discovered.

Note that if merged, TBA would redirect to PICA, so those searching for it would surely find it anyway. We could even put the redirect into the festival category, just to be safe. Now, notability hinges on whether there are multiple, non-trivial reliable sources in the article, so they should be introduced to the article itself, because arguments about notability on the talk page do not do anything to show notability. You need to show not tell about notability. Surely the festival has been written up in The Oregonian, if it's really notable, maybe even a national publication? Without such sources, someone might decide to take this to Afd (Not me, don't worry) and I doubt it would pass. Thus merger seems like the best option until the article is developed. Katr67 (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No "accusatory" tone intended; I'm just short on time; I spent a lot of time creating this article and was responding to the template. I think you are reading "accusatory tone" into the comments made; this is not a personal matter. It is not possible to categorize this article properly if it is merged with the other one, which has different categories. --NYScholar (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I added references indicating the regional and national notability of the festival. --NYScholar (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC) [Notability of a festival does not have to be national or international for it to be included as a Wikipedia article; please see multiple articles on notable subjects pertinent to regions. If it is important enough to be included in guide books and arts events listings that go beyond the Portland, OR, area, then it is apparently notable enough for this article in Wikipedia. The reason that I created the article is because of references to the TBA Festival in Gothamist and other New York City-based news citations. I needed to know what it is, and as a result of finding out, I created the article as a service to others with the same need. (Its guest curator for the past two years, Mark Russell, is internationally known, and he too deserves an article in Wikipedia, as does its founder (who currently directs another major international festival, the Melbourne International Arts Festival.) --NYScholar (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC) [added info. --NYScholar (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)]

At this writing, the article on the TBA Festival is actually more fully developed and better sourced than the article on PICA, which could use fuller development for what it is (not just an art festival), but a multiple-programming art institution, museum, etc. It could use fuller development without repeating what is in this article, which is currently properly cross-linked. --NYScholar (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Style?

If you have a comment on how to improve style, please make such comments on this talk page. Please don't just slap an unnecessary "clean up" template on article. The citations are correctly formatted with parenthetical references (Harvard or MLA referencing)--see MLA Style Manual--to proper references. [Added the style template at top of this talk page.] --NYScholar (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup goes beyond the referencing. This article needs a serious copyedit. Templates alert editors the article needs cleanup, nothing more or less. However since you seem to have this article well in hand, I leave you to it and not reapply the template. Note I have also removed the merge proposal. Happy editing. Katr67 (talk) 02:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I did some reorganization, adding sections, for those who may want to copyedit this article or develop it further. This is currently all I have time to do (more than I had time to do actually, but I did what I could). --NYScholar (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability

I disagree with the editor who says this is notable. Maybe to you, but by Wikipedia standards it currently does not demonstrate enough notability. We demonstrate notability through citing information from Wikipedia determined reliable sources, which are mainly newspapers, magazines, books, and journals. Additionally, these must provide significant (i.e. do more than merely mention the subject) coverage and by independent of the subject. Only the first two sources given in this article accomplish this, and were these featured articles in a national publication then this would be enough. The third source is trivial coverage of this subject and the final source has PICA as a client, thus not independent. So only two RS in regional media are not quite enough. I would suggest combing through more of The Oregonian or NW art magazines (or national art journals) to better demonstrate the notability and prevent it from being deleted. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Such reliable third party publications have been added to the references list; the reviews make clear, as does the description of the TBA Festival, that it includes international as well as national and regional performance artists and groups and that it is compared to major international art festivals. Its notability is clearly validated by these references. --NYScholar (talk) 03:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)