Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital artist


 * 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   merge to Digital art.  MBisanz  talk 03:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Digital artist

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

An anonymous IP on the talk page said it quite well: "What is a digital artist? There is no such defenition. An artist is an artist. He or she isn't digital at all." The term is vague and not a de facto term by any stretch of the imagination. The page contains several arbitrary examples (gallery) of art which was conceived digitally, more of which is boundless on the internet. There are no inline citations, either. ← Spidern  →  17:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.   --  ←  Spidern  →  17:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.   --  ←  Spidern  →  17:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Standard term, in common use, and well established within the digital arts community. Measles (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Supposing the term is in fact standard, does the page do it justice? ←  Spidern  →  18:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * not the issue, it's a start, we'll get around to it. Measles (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Only reason I ask is because I'm trying to focus mainly on the content of the page, rather than the term itself. The question remains that even if it's an industry standard term, does enough secondary sourcing exist to merit mention in an encyclopedia, or is it worthy only of a Wiktionary mention? ←  Spidern  →  19:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * yes, there is, and I'm suprised there is no evidence of it on the page, here is an idea what's out there in the mainstream press, there is also a research based digital art scene, and many of the individuals in that sphere refer to themselves as digital artists in the broader sense of the definition. Measles (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to Digital art. I can't see how the content of the two articles would be different. Installation artist redirects to Installation art. Performance artist redirects to Performance art.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * one reason why merging might not serve this, is that the Digital art article appears to deal specifically with computer generated visual art, but that is not the sole domain of expression in the digital arts. Measles (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the lead paragraph of the Digital Art article does say that the term can be more broadly understood. So, that's the article to work on.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Digital art per WP:NOTDIC. This reminds me of the AfD for Encyclopedia article that we ended up redirecting to Encyclopedia - useless dictionary definition, not article. Ethicoaestheticist (what a name!) is right on the money here - all other "artist" pages redirect to "art" pages and there's absolutely no reason this one shouldn't.  Graymornings (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Digital art. per Sculptor redirecting to Sculpture, Singer to Singing, k.t.l. Painter would go to Painting if it were not a disambig. Basically, there is nothing that justifies anything further than a sentence in Digital art ("One who creates digital art is known as a digital artist") or perhaps a category: Category:Digital art (EDIT: which apparently exists). CaveatLector Talk Contrib 06:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Digital art per above.  freshacconci  talk talk  20:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Digital art per others. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Digital art per above, makes sense...Modernist (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2009 (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.