The comments below were placed on the resource page by me, and blanked by a user. I am placing them here for discussion. Some of this should be on the resource page, some was dicta; we often, developing resources, may be chatty on the resource page. It's part of the learning process. Anyone who thniks that this damages the page may move it to Talk, that is not disruptive. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

See w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art Strike 1990–1993, an AfD remarkable in that there was only the nomination and one opinion, no defense, yet not relisted and a delete close. The defenders were on Strike, or just out to lunch. Actually, I find this:

Article apparently created by IP, in 2004, when the Earth was young. See [1]. The article creator edited Neoist articles: [2]. The AfD came 11 years later. No interested user would see the AfD notice. The nominator likely did not look at "What links here."
Art Strike is mentioned:

w:Neoism#Influences_on_other_artists_and_subcultures, red link, text referenced to a dead link.
w:List_of_strikes#1990s now a red link.
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shawn_P._Wilbur has a link to the Art Strike article, now a redlink ("mentioned"). The arguments for deletion of the Shawn P. Wilbur article are technically correct. However, the forest for the trees. The article creator was a well-known wikipedian, seeking to make the project more useful for readers. That doesn't matter. "Useful for readers" is not a goal of the project, I've seen many examples. Even making verification easy is not a goal. Convenience links to legal copies of published papers, only accessible behind pay walls, or even not accessible at all, otherwise, have been excluded as "not necessary." There is a lot of talk about education, but education is not a goal of Wikipedia. It is a goal of Wikiversity, and the placing of sister wiki links to Wikiversity could address some of this.

(But I wonder. If an article only points to the author's publications and does not provide biographical information if it is not verifiable, and the publications are covered in reliable source, the publications are an aspect of the author's life, covered in reliable source. Once there is an article on a subject, self-published sources may be used supplementally, if attributed that way. We see, here, very common obtuse Wikipedian thinking, narrow in focus, that created a mass of rules and guidelines, but that, at the same time, follows them unreliably, often losing sight of the purposes of the project.)

Shawn P. Wilbur has a WMF account: w:User:Libertatia. Some interesting comment on Wikipedia on that user page. The user is still active, last edit was July. I'd invite him here, but "the user has not specified a valid email address." Face-palm. I can probably find him, but will I get a Round Tuit? I know there is one somewhere in this office. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Merge with Art Strike

Shall this page be merged with Art Strike?Dx (discuss • contribs) 18:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)Reply