Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mathematical artists


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 01:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

List of mathematical artists

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I really do not see this as a viable list, even with rigorous criteria for inclusion and limiting it to artists with blue links. As geometry is a branch of mathematics almost all painters use elements of maths in their work. TheLongTone (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Only a small proportion of artists actually explore mathematics in their work - M. C. Escher and Leonardo da Vinci being the canonical examples. The criterion must be that the art itself is agreed in Reliable, Independent Sources to be exploring an aspect of mathematics. Merely making use of existing cultural norms of geometric perspective is on this criterion not sufficient for an artist to be considered mathematical. In the case of Piero della Francesca, his work is agreed by critics (see e.g. J. V. Field, Piero della Francesca. A Mathematician's Art, Yale University Press, 2005) to be exploring mathematical perspective because in his era (the 15th century) that was at the cutting edge of discovery, and his use of it was highly distinctive. It is very likely that some of the uncited entries on the list will fail this criterion and they should at once be removed. The list itself is sound in concept with a robustly defensible list inclusion criterion, and once tidied up will be a well-formed, interesting, encyclopaedic list article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have reworked the list as a table, giving dates and brief descriptions of the artists' mathematically-inspired innovations, with additional references. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - One can find many sources to prove this list. D-4597-aR (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:LISTN. See Mathematical artists and artist mathematicians, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Mathematical artists. North America1000 21:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - I agree with Andrew D.. Hector Trojan (talk) 10:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. I would not describe many of these as mathematical artists. Escher, possibly. Using compositions based of the Golden Section is so commonplace as to be trivial. Including an icosahedron or whatever does not make you a mathematical artist. Is Jasper Johns a mathematical arist because he does paintings with digits in them...and circles??. Is Braque a matematical artist because he's a cubist??.TheLongTone (talk) 13:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You can see a list here: http://euler.slu.edu/escher/index.php/Mathematical_ArtistsD-4597-aR (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The point is that each of these things was new, once, and some pioneering mathematical artists explored them innovatively. To do the same thing now would merely be derivative; it might be art, but it would be of very doubtful notability (and bad art, but that's not our business). Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Chiswick chap, you've done good with the article but I still think it's listcruft, and in any case should be entitled 'List of artists who use mathematics'. Those cited such as Ucello and Leonardo use mathematics rather thanm mathematics being the subject of their art.TheLongTone (talk) 12:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Both the general notability of the subject, and the specific relevance of most of these artists to the subject, are well sourced, and by including a table of dates, media, and descriptions the list clearly adds value compared to a category for the same information. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2015 (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.