Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arts criticism


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus, default to keep. Arguing the semantics between Arts criticism and Art criticism is kind of silly, and the authors may want to put some real consideration into merging the two articles together into something cohesive. Shereth 20:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Arts criticism

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Appears to be unreferenced original research. Stifle (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Hello. I'm the page creator, so no surprise that I'm defending. Judging by my talk page Stifles problem with the article is that it's unreferenced. I find that a really hard criticism to address but NOT because I don't feel the article should stand but because the statements I've made in the article are so broad and uncontroversial that I really am at a loss as to where to begin to get references from (continues...)
 * (...)We know what the arts are. And we know what criticism is. I've merely brought those two things together and they are such that I dt know how to give a meaningful reference. Sure improve on those statements. But I don't see how you can delete an article (the subject of which is a supplement in many newspapers and a section in general interest magazines) because it is deemed wp:Original research as was suggested in the history of the article and a reason for deletion here. Does arts criticism not exist? Does it not have a history? Is it not a section in the book stores? Are there not notable critics we can mention? So please: don't delete. Expand and improve. If you have any suggestions as to how to reference it and develop it then I will follow them to make this article survive. --bodnotbod (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Redirect per Reyk. I'm embarrassed I missed the existing good article under slightly different spelling.  This article is WP:OR essay.  LotLE × talk  22:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Art criticism, which is an established and legitimate article. Reyk  YO!  22:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that this article is discussing overall criticism of all arts (including music, architecture, etc), whereas Art criticism only discussed criticism of visual arts. The various types of "arts criticism" should be tied together in some way. I'm not sure whether this article is it. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment- I think the Art criticism article should be expanded to include all the other sorts of art. Reyk  YO!  23:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia article titles should reflect common use of terms in the real world. In the real world, "art criticism" is used for visual arts and "arts criticism" is used for all arts. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This page seems to confirm that the term "art criticism" isn't just restricted to the visual arts and so I think that the two terms are interchangeable. Reyk  YO!  23:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment "Art criticism" is often used to mean visual arts only. Googling the term, most of the usages on the first page are visual-arts only. Presumably this is why art criticism has been written this way. Inevitably you'll also be able to find people using English differently, perhaps at places like Norwegian universities ;). An AfD seems a strange place to try to rescope an article that isn't even the one under discussion. You could try editing the article art criticism to include all arts and see whether that scope can find consensus. Once you do so, I'd be curious whether an article called "visual art criticism" has to be created, given that all other specific artform criticism movements have their own articles. Perhaps you'd be better off to rename art criticism to "visual art criticism" in the first place and skip the painful middle stages where a lot of people will disagree with you? But in the mean time, with the scopes currently given to each article, they are both notable and describe different scopes so should not be merged or redirected. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am entirely happy to see some rejigging of article titles because it is certainly the case that the titles arts criticism v art criticism are bothersome/confusing. Whether my article name is changed or the extant one, I don't mind. However, as others have noted there is a distinction here. The art criticism article is about what most newspapers I have looked at refer to as visual art (painting, sculpture, things you see in a gallery). Whereas the arts is broader encompassing the spectrum of artistic endeavors (dance, film, architecture etc) which you often find at newspaper sites if you click on "arts and entertainment". --bodnotbod (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Have been Googling around, and there seems to be plenty of evidence to support the "Arts criticism" as the name for a notable social phenomenon. As a sample: The Future of Arts Criticism, Justin Davidson on arts criticism, Arts Criticism Wanes Nationally, Modern Arts Criticism (book). City University London has a Master of Arts course in "Arts Criticism", and I doubt its the only one. I've really only scratched the surface of the evidence of notability, it's a deep sea because this is a long-term, wide-spread, international phenomena with a commonly-used name. Did any of the Delete Redirect voters actually look for evidence of notability? Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Not opposed to redirecting to art criticism, but would like this AFD to run its course as a previous redirecting was reverted. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - why are you not opposed to a redirect when there is ample evidence that the two articles are about substantially different things? What makes 'redirect' a good option here? You might just as well redirect Washington DC to Washington County since, the effect of a redirect here is to redirect a broad article into a specific one. --bodnotbod (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment . There is a difference between Art criticism and Arts criticism, so there is scope for an article by this name—provided someone can come up with some reliable sources, that is. Look for sources that also talk about the history of arts criticism, and topics such as the rise of the internet as a carrier of cultural commentary should provide some meat for the article. Can I suggest to the closing admin that if the article is deleted that it is userfied in order for it to be worked on at the editor's own leisure? Alternatively, the editor could try incorporating the information as a subsection of The arts, until such time as it is large enough to be spun-off into its own article. There'd be space for his navbox there too. Steve  T • C 18:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It needs major expansion and work, some tweaks to the terminology and topics, and maybe a name change at some point, but it is no longer unreferenced and I believe there is now enough here for a reasonable stub article. Brevity in of itself should be no reason to delete. Thanks, Steve  T • C 19:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.