This article is within the scope of WikiProject Graffiti, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to graffiti art, graffiti artists and all aspects of graffiti culture. Click Here for more information.GraffitiWikipedia:WikiProject GraffitiTemplate:WikiProject GraffitiGraffiti 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject San Diego, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to San Diego and San Diego County 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.San DiegoWikipedia:WikiProject San DiegoTemplate:WikiProject San DiegoSan Diego articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
This is far less than notable. It is about graffiti on an underpass - a very local and minor issue not worthy of an encyclopedia article. Article built & Afd-ed by blocked user. Previous Afd was closed on a technicality. History2007 (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although the article states that it is "technically" graffiti "that should be removed under the law", it actually is a mosaic, which may be a first for (unsanctioned) street art. I find many news reports in RS, such as this in The Washington Post, and the coverage is generally non-trivial, so this may be at least somewhat notable. --Lambiam09:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, this is an example of how Wikipedia "gathers garbage". There are key encyclopedia topics that need help, and this type of graffiti, and bands formed in garages who have sold 17 CDs (wow! we are a band!) get pages and waste editor effort. Go figure... History2007 (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you have to bring up some other case is actually indicative that you can't find enough evidence on this case to support your opinion. This is a singularity for street art and arts in general in many ways (e.g. creation, techniques used, dismantling, community support). This is also supported by how much money has been spent on this one already by the city and the news coverage it got. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.73.244.157 (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This subject is similar to the Malibu Pink Lady mural of the 1960's, which is also featured in Wikipedia Pink Lady (art). It was a 60 ft mural by an unknown artist over a traffic tunnel and generated similar controversy (and outcome). I believe both of these (mosaic and mural) have their place in history. 157.185.24.15 (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Phred.[reply]
The Prod was contested - nice going Erik. No point in spending effort on this junk article. I hereby nominate this article for the "worst of Wikipedia" and leave it there. This type of discussion is a total waste of time and is an example of what Wikipedia should not be - coverage of overpass or underpass graffiti and bands formed by high school students an encyclopedia does not make. I doubt if this would have made it into Britannica. Good luck you guys. History2007 (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and Afd it. I can not be bothered. Anyone and his brother (even blocked users) can start a junk page and waste everyone's time. I will stop watching this page now. There is more to life than Wikijunk. History2007 (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
