Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bio-art


 * 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 delete, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NEO, WP:BRENNEMAN. Proto :: ►  14:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Bio-art

 * — (View AfD)

neologism, non-notable "recent development[] of contemporary art" - crz crztalk 05:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Certainly needs to cite sources and is a pretty short article, somewhat POV, and it's full of all that ridiculous self-glorification/importance that it unfortunately wedded to most discussions of "art."  That said, it mentions a number of practitioners of the form and it's roots/influences.  Seems to sufficiently posit notability to me.--Velvet elvis81 05:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Both this and Eduardo Kac could use a bloody good clean, and maybe end up as a redirect at worst. Guys like Stelarc have been doing this for donkey's, it gets coverage because the photos look great in the paper, etc.  In the event that my lazy arse has not done anything to this article by the time this debate comes to fruition, a magic wand shall pass over those words to be replace them with "Delete because no one cared enough to clean it up." -  brenneman  06:20, 4 January 2007  Hey, closer man, no embolded words for you today!  It's not a vote, you know.
 * 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.