Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diacosmetism


 * 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.   Sandstein   19:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Diacosmetism

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

Article describes a purportedly new painting technique developed by a young prodigy (16 years old), but the first exposition of this method has yet to take place (planned for August 2008, according to a previous version of the article). Creator has removed prod without sufficient explanation, no independent sources establishing notability. Hence I am proposing this for deletion Crusio (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. The artist isn't notable, no exposition of his work has taken place, and (despite the claim in the article) the painting style itself isn't new or innovative. Showing objects by 'suggesting' their shapes with patterns has been done many times before.  Channel &reg;    23:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 05:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Perhaps Aristea Rellou will be the next Van Gogh, albeit with two ears; perhaps, but not today. Unfortunately, this article about a style of painting is unillustrated, and no example can be found even Google Images.  Rellou's own name does not return any results outside of this article.  I guess she's real famous, but nobody knows it.  Mandsford (talk) 11:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Did you google with latin or Greek letters ? There may be 1000s of refs in Greek! just a thought. --triwbe (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point, Triwbe. I checked. There aren't, except for one to Mrellos' own site. Channel &reg;    00:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * KEEP. The style is really new, bright and innovative in a terrible era of spiritual stalemate where artists either look at the past or become famous by painting with their blood or by using dead animals... Perhaps someone else in the past has painted forms as repeating patterns, but repeating patterns is only a small portion of diacosmetism. Considering the simultaneous usage of the specific different materials on canvas and the many co-existing aspects and plurality of the forms, as seen in its totality, the style is new and innovative. It has a special ideological content described and published in the newspaper METRO (with the bigger circulation in Athens) in the form of a manifest. The press has focused in the paintings of Aristea Rellou, especially the tv. One may see pictures of diacosmetistic paintings in the internet in the painter's web site and elsewhere. If it was not summer, time of holiday for me, I could mention much more references. And if I knew how to add pictures to wikipedia, I would add some pictures of diacosmetistic paintings and then I am certain that there could be a loud consensus on behalf of the article.Mrellos (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Mrellos, when you post a comment on a talk page, you should sign it (there's a signature icon above the edit window, otherwise just type four tildes ~). The link you just added to the article is dead, can you correct it? Adding pictures would be nice, but would have no influence at all on the deletion debate. Articles on Wikipedia have to demonstrate notability by citing independent and verifiable sources. Please read the policies that I have linked here, they will either help you to show notability for this article or to understand why it cannot be kept. --Crusio (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The definition of notability in Wikipedia has to do with the inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded.". Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular" - although not irrelevant - is secondary. So, as far it concerns diacosmetism, we must focus on the encyclopedic suitability and the importance of a real new -ism in painting. We must not only focus in finding a great number of references, which exist in Greek press, not in books yet, but it is very difficult to find the sources and the citations within the Greek newspapers and magazines and publish them inside the article. Most of the existing citations are in written press, not in the Internet. The difficulty is greater because of it is vacation time for me. In September I would have the chance to find out many more references and citations in Greek written sources. Anyway, I see a problem caused by the talks, especially by the well-respected gentlemen Mandsford and Chanell. Their comments are either unfounded or ironic and this may constitute an illegal libel against myself or the painter. It is easy to write - without proof - that ''the painting style itself isn't new or innovative. Showing objects by 'suggesting' their shapes with patterns has been done many times before. But when you do not explain who has painted in this manner in order to compare, the conclusion is intentional bad fame for the painter.'' It is easy to make ironies mentioning Van Gong's one ear etc., but it is not descent to undermine a new style, that is original, even in the making. This is what an on-line encyclopedia is all about. Since these disturbing talks and ironic comments by the above gentlemen stay in the Internet and are not totally erased, unless these gentlemen decide to erase them by themselves,it would be wise for me to ask the administrator to delete all the article and the talking in the next days to save time for us all... mrellos
 * Comment It's nice that you'll be on vacation until September(!!).  Somehow.... I get the feeling that Miss Rellou hasn't become prominent enough to attract the attention of art critics.    If you're that upset over the comments made by Chanell and by me (which really are criticisms of your advertisement-like article, rather than of her artwork) then one can only imagine how you'll react the first time an unfavorable review is published in a book, magazine, etc.   If your plan is to accuse naysayers of "illegal libel", you'll learn that the only thing in the art world that's worse than being criticized is to be ignored.   When Miss Rellou becomes world famous (and I wish her all the best), I will be honored that I was one of the first two people in the world to have made a critical comment.  Stay on vacation.  Mandsford (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Nice to be called a gentleman for a change. And the name is Channel R, by the way. Not so nice to be accused of "illegal libel" (whatever that may be). Examples? Sure. Check out Abstract Expressionism, Collages, Maori paintings, Jugendstill and Art Nouveau. You'll come across some very familiar things. More importantly, there's no reason why references in the Greek press (to which I happen to have daily access, believe it or not) can not be added to the article. I haven't seen them yet, but feel free to let me know when Miss Rellou has major articles in Eleftheros Typos, Ta Nea, and other national Greek newspapers. Right now she's simply not notable enough, as explained above. Yassas, Channel &reg;    00:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Second.That's why I argue for the originality of the style and because of its originality I think it must be in wikipedia even so soon, before its first public exhibition. As I wrote above, notability in wikipedia is "worthy of notice"; Something that is significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention. Publicity or fame is not irrelevant, but a second criterion if the first does not exit. Most of Greek press is not on-line in the Internet. The newspaper APOGEVMATINI wrote a great article with color photos on diacosmetism and Aristea and kept it there, as always, for two days. Anyway, in September I would be able to find many citations. By the way, the newspaper TA NEA has asked for an interview and a full look at the paintings. Third. I did not accuse anyone for illegal libel. I argued that it may be considered as such, if someone reads the comments and concludes that the painter makes a false claim on originality in a new style that is not true, since members of the respected on-line community of wikipedia decline the argument. I am certain that the intentions of the above gentlemen were not malevolent and had to do more with British humor, with which I feel very familiar. No accusations for illegal libel should be expected. Fourth. I am certain that if Mr. Mandsford and Mr. Chanel R. were to be in Mykonos for the exhibition of the first diacosmetistic paintings, they wouldn't talk about advertisement or familiarity examples and they would be the first to write an article in wikipedia. Unless I have persuaded them with these logical arguments, I do not think that an article in wikipedia that comes with a mountain of Deletion Tags on top, make any sense. Concerning that it is a new style of a young artist, this article - mountain with deletion tags on the top is a libel by itself. That's why, if the above two gentlemen, who made me the honor to discuss my article so much, becoming unwillingly experts in diacosmetism, do not wish to change their mind and propose a Keep until their next comment on this talk, I officially ask the administrator of wikipedia to immediately erase the article including all the discussion and history of the discussion from any public view. In this case the above gentlemen perhaps will feel obliged to write the article by themselves when they think it is appropriate.Mrellos (talk) 05:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * CommentFirst. There is not any similarity or familiarity between a) diacosmetism and b) Abstract Expressionism, Collages, Maori paintings, Jugendstill and Art Nouveau. I have long studied the history of art and seen thousands of paintings myself and the combination of the specific mixed technique on canvas plus the ideological content is unique. In order to compare the above Channel R's argument, he should indicate specific paintings of Maori paintings, Jugendstill, etc, of which I am unaware or ignorant. Please enlight me. The only thing familiar between these styles is that they all use some paints...
 * Comment - 1) I'm not going to turn this page into an art forum, sorry. 2) Please understand that being "interesting" is not the same as being notable. "Interesting" is a personal opinion, notability can be verified. I agree that the painter appears to be talented, given her age, but that's simply not enough. 3) I think you give WP more power than it actually has. 4) Sorry, but I would never write an article based on one exhibition, even if I loved the work to bits. KInd regards, Channel &reg;    09:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Atmitted this is not a "fast growing", "increasingly popular" band, but the same alarmbells go off, and I can't find anything to counter those bells in independent reliable sources with siginificant coverage. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:55, 26 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.