Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Image development (visual arts)


 * 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 Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 14:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Image development (visual arts)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a Dictionary, the definition here contradicts sources and the meaning ascribed to the phrase is Original Research. The identification of the word-paring as a 'phrase' with a specific meaning is doubtful, and not notable. Davémon 11:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep as this is clearly not a dicdef. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: Most of my objections were made on the talk page. I've provided a dozen references. The page is #3 in googles listing. Oicumayberight 19:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As also discussed on the talk page the 'references' don't stand up to scrutiny, and the Google-test mostly showed up scraper sites, not reliable sources. --Davémon 00:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In your sole opinion. Oicumayberight 00:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * All the references given are primary sources, this is a fact, not an opinion, as anyone bothering to check your references would soon discover. --Davémon 12:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I am a graphic designer and this is an important topic. It is a process not a dictionary definition. If it is not correctly reflecting what image development is, then just edit it a bit. Goldenrowley 20:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:N for guidance on 'importance'. --Davémon 00:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I am a graphic designer, and this phrase isn't used in the industry or academic circles in any way that requires more definition than could be gleaned from reading a dictionary definition of the separate words image and development, and subsequently this entry does not belong in wikipedia. --Davémon 00:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What's your real problem? Just because you've never heard it used, doesn't mean it isn't. And now you seem to have a problem with the consensus to keep the article. If you are a graphic designer, you shouldn't have a problem with graphic designers developing a common vocabulary for what is an obviously useful umbrella term. Oicumayberight 00:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the place to "develop a common vocabulary", it's a place to put verifiable information. As such this article is out of scope for wikipedia, perhaps see if it fits better in wikisource? or wiki-dictionary? --Davémon 12:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The term did not originate on the wikipedia. This has been verified. You just refuse to accept that. Oicumayberight 18:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no 'term', just an frequent word-pairing which you have synthesized a specific meaning for (this is WP:OR). Rather than stating 'this has been verified' it might be more productive to produce the material which verifies your claims - with reference to WP:V and WP:RS. The burden of evidence does not lay with me to prove your assertions are unverifiable, but on you to provide verifiable sources for your claim. --Davémon 18:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You're not the final say of what is proof. So far the consensus is that it's been proven. Oicumayberight 22:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in proof. I'm interested in verifiability. I can see a lot of consensus being created here, which is great, but none of it is actually in regards WP:OR or WP:V - which is why the AFD was put in the first place. If consensus is achieved for reasons outside of that, then I'm free to challenge it again.--Davémon 11:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter how many times you challenge it. It doesn't matter how many people you dispute. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat your accusations. Denying the obvious doesn't make it any less obvious. Those two words have clearly defined factual meaning in printed dictionaries. When the words are combined, the meaning is clear in the referenced context of how they are used. It's like denying that 2.13 + 2.17 = 4.30 because you haven't seen the equation in print. Unless you can get the words "image" and "development" removed from every dictionary, It's your opinion versus common sense. Oicumayberight 19:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * We have achieved some consensus: "Those two words have clearly defined factual meaning in printed dictionaries". I agree 100%. Any further 'explanation' of the words is obviously erronous in that it precludes the obvious meaning and narrows the definition. This makes the article entirely misleading and there's certainly no need to have an encyclopedia entry about it, unless of course, there is verifiable evidence to the contrary? --Davémon 15:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You are cleverly trying to make it like the article is defining the term. It's not. The sources define the term by using the term in context. Just because you expect to see it word-for-word as stated in the article, doesn't mean the article is the primary source of the term. The article does not narrow the definition, because the article is not defining it. The article is citing usage, how it may be used, and contrasting it from terms less broad or the homonym uses of the term. Oicumayberight 22:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No body is saying the article is the primary source for the term, but that the article only references primary sources, and that there are no reliable secondary sources for the term. --Davémon 15:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge to Visual communication if it's not worth keeping as an article. This is just a suggestion, I personally don't care whether it goes or stays. Chris the speller 23:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't mind a merge to a better umbrella term if there were one. Visual communication includes typography, page layout and graphic design, which isn't exactly image development, unless you consider the whole page an image. I'm sure that the reason the word emerged was to set page layout apart from the skills required to develop images used in the page. How many times have you met a good illustrator or photographer who didn't know page layout, or a person who could layout pages only if clipart and stock photography were provided? Oicumayberight 01:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Question: Is Image development (visual arts) used in relation to three dimensional creation, or is it only used in the context of bringing into existence two dimensional entities? Web pages I consider two dimensional, because the computer screen is two dimensional. Is the term used to refer to the bringing into existence of three dimensional items too? Bus stop 02:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not that I'm the authority for all uses of the term, I would say that any method of creating or editing images is image development. If you are talking about scanning or modeling images, it wouldn't be a stretch to call 3-D modeling image development. If you are talking about hand sculpting, I would call that image development, but I'm not sure if anyone else would. Oicumayberight 02:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Questions: It sounds like a useful term. I can agree that an umbrella term is called for, or so it seems to me. I just don't know if the term has gained real use. Do you know the origin of the term? Did it arise naturally? Or, was it coined in some type of academic setting? Is there perhaps a textbook, or an online teaching program, that makes use of the term? Bus stop 05:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know where it originated. The first time I saw it was back in 2000 on a poster for a creative advertising awards event. It showed symbols for each category. The "image development" symbol was a camera and a paintbrush. I wish I could remember the sponsor. I remembered the term because I was putting together a talk on art specialties and was conflicted about calling photographers "illustrators." I don't know if anyone has ever officially defined it in print word-for-word, seeing as how the meaning is obvious when used in context. The wikipedia is full of these umbrella terms and loosely defined terms. I don't see a problem with visual arts having a few. Oicumayberight 06:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In short, there are no verifiable secondary sources for the article and therefore it should be deleted. --Davémon 11:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a list of references on the page in which the term is used in context in print. But since we all know that the world wide web gets updated faster than even the fastest printer (the web fed printing press) can print a single color on a page, there is a list of links on the discussion page as well. A number of those links point to academic uses. Oicumayberight 10:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * However, the references are primary sources, and so contravene WP:OR and WP:V. More tellingly most of these are do not use the phrase in the way defined in the article. ie. they cover traditional media and the obvious meaning of 'image development', not a specific meaning to do with computers, therefore making the entire article misleading and redundant. --Davémon 11:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The article does not state that image development is specific to computers. It says mainly but not exclusively computers because most of the sources referenced refer to computer graphics. The term would probably not have emerged if it were not for computer graphics making it easier to combine techniques and blurring the distinction between the techniques. Oicumayberight 19:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "would probably not" doesn't sound like you have any reliable, secondary sources for that opinion. Many of the references given do not refer to computer graphics at all. --Davémon 15:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Davemon, now you are trying to make it like everything anyone says on the wikipedia, including discussion pages, needs to be sourced. Wikipedia policy allows for people to have opinions. You seem to be stuck on the computer graphics aspect. Again, image development does not exclusively apply to computer graphics. Oicumayberight 22:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Simply offering opinions doesn't help progress a debate which is fundamentally about verification. As an aside, if image development isn't about computer graphics, then you must admit that the article is heavily skewed in that direction - and has mislead the anonymous user below. --Davémon 15:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Is that what all this resistance and denying common sense is about? Are you a neo-luddite? Are you a technophobe? These are not personal attacks. These are serious questions you should ask yourself. There must be a reason why nobody but you has resisted this after all this time.


 * I'll ignore the remarks addressing me personally. I think the reason nobody has questioned before it is because the few people who have seen the article assumed the information is correct rather than actually checking the sources, or perhaps they don't think WP:V is important. --Davémon 09:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is not skewed. It's not saying that image development requires computer use. The computer made the term "image development" a necessity just like it made "user interface" a necessity.  just because user-interface originated with computers doesn't mean that it's exclusive to computers; but it is mainly used in computing. The same goes for image development. Oicumayberight 19:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * For the final time: this definition is not verifiable through secondary sources.
 * " The computer made the term 'image development' a necessity " - is this according to you, or a reliable secondary source? --Davémon 09:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I remind you again, it's a talk page. Opinions are especially allowed in at talk page. Every common sense statement doesn't have to be sources especially on talk pages. Oicumayberight 11:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep While browsing around Wikipedia in attempts to learn more about graphic design, desktop publishing, illustration, etc. various topics, I saw 'image development' and a link to this article more than just once or twice. I found it to be a useful and interesting article (I'm already aware of your 'notability is not subjective' point, no need to remind me), and it clarified my previous hunch on what it basically was (mostly stuff like computer graphics, photo editting, etc.).  The way I see it, if I already thought subconsciously that 'image development' had to do primarily with a generalization of computer graphics rather than, say, development of images such as paintings or sketches and such, then the term must be used in that context enough for a general amount of people to view the term in that way.  There is such a thing as slang terms and jargon, which Wikipedia holds a plethora of articles on, I can assure you (I like to look up slang terms and such that I find interesting here when bored, they've got much smaller-scale, less-widely-used term definition/articles than 'image development', trust me).  I also found the article was a good generalizer so that I could find something that linked or referenced to various other related articles, which I, and probably others that are attempting to learn more on the various related subjects, was interested in.  I find no 'good' reason to delete this article outright, and the reasons cited to delete it seem highly exaggerated or untrue, especially that last note, with '...doubtful, and not notable'.  What do you mean by 'notable'?  Many different sites, scraper sites or no, and articles in Wikipedia itself seem to find it notable enough to apply the terms in themselves and link to this 'unnotable identification of the word-pairing as a phrase'.  At the very most, maybe a clean-up tag or something of the like, but full-on deletion is somewhat ungrounded and a tad on the ridiculous side.  I've seen much worse articles that still have plenty of chance to be altered, merged, or improved rather than deleted outright.


 * Hi, could you sign your comment please? I note this is the only edit to come from this users IP address. With regards to not notable - I mean that it hasn't been written about by reliable secondary sources, i.e. if you looked it up in a "Dictionary of Art" or a "Dictionary of Design" it would not appear - it simply doesn't have status as a term any more than 'sandwich making' does - it doesn't matter how many people use those two words together, if no reliable source has written about the use of the term, then it's not notable (i'm basing that on WP:NEO - and am aware that whilst the words are not new - the idea that they carry a specific meaning is new). Scraper sites are just robot-sites that copy wikipedias content and add advertising to it - so don't help establish the terms use or notability. Secondly, your assumption about "image development" having to do with computer graphics isn't actually borne out by the references given in the article  - 'image development' is generally used in it's broadest, most obvious sense - to mean anything to do with the process of making an image (there are examples of this misappropriation of references on the talk page, two of them specifically use the term with reference to sketching, painting etc.) - so your previous hunch wasn't clarified - so much as you have been mislead by this article. If it were to be cleaned up to reflect the reality of the use of the 'phrase' it would just be one line: See image development. As for a 'good' reason to delete it, nothing stated in the article is verifiable - it contravenes WP:V WP:OR, WP:NPOV,WP:NEO, Wp:not, and it will not only mislead people as to the actual nature of the word-pairing but also lowers wikipedias standards as an encyclopedia.--Davémon 14:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The article states why the term is used and contrasts it from corporate image development. According to Davemon logic, there doesn't need to be an article for any term that includes more than one word if the words are individually defined. So Davemon must not think terms like "computer science" and "graphic design" need articles as well. Oicumayberight 22:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This is absurd, both "graphic design" and "computer science" have significance, historic and cultural currency beyond a simple dictionary definition, which can be established through verifiable secondary and tertiary sources. Also, please see No_personal_attacks. --Davémon 15:52, 14 February 2007 (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.