Talk:Arts Catalyst

Notability

Hello, this article needs references that show notability through significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. It seems that almost all of the references are primary or self-published sources, which are insufficient for establishing notability of the topic. Better to have three good sources than 20 mediocre ones. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

by notability could you specify particular sections, is this just the sections marked criticism needed? Within our references we do have primary and secondary sources, however have not been able to find a vast amount on The Arts Catalyst group as a whole if you could be more speficic with your critiicism it would be very helpful. --Jessie Megs (talk) 12:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The book sources listed are not self published, we understand that some of the references are self published and understand that this is an issue, we do intend to improve the article in future and will not simply leave this page as a bleak semi trustworthy account, it will be an ongoing work after our university assessment which I know you are clearly aware of, we have already been flagged for speedy deletion once and have contested and correctly had the page restored, so other administrators have already flagged our shortcomings, I assure you this will change.--J.skudkid (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The article should summarize what the reliable, independent sources say about Arts Catalyst, not what the group itself or people and projects closely associated with the group say about it. The Guardian article on art in space is a good example of a reliable source - all the stuff published by Arts Catalyst itself is worthless for establishing notability on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arts Catalyst. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://arts.rpi.edu/century/eao11/Art-Science-Born-Barry.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120312135621/http://arcticperspective.org/about to http://arcticperspective.org/about
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121004033203/http://www.antennae.org.uk/ANTENNAE%20ISSUE%2013.pdf to http://www.antennae.org.uk/ANTENNAE%20ISSUE%2013.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)