Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metapainting (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Michig (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Metapainting
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Poorly explained artistic term, unclear whether it differs from the 2007 AfD of the same term, or what it is even describing. Fails WP:NEO with no secondary sources. McGeddon (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I challenge the above criticism, as the article was in draft when the McGeddon review was undertaken. The 2007 term was not supported and promotional, while this expanded use of the term is defined in the article.  The article *is* a neologism in the sense that the idea itself is not new, but the term is late to be capture.  It is not a single new term, but rather a framework for a sputtering but active movement in art. Further, the multiple movements of collaborative painting (such as the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunisian_collaborative_painting) restate the need for a broader cultural understanding of enhanced and directed collaborative painting efforts that engender the term.  I suggest you reread the article and respect the development of wikipedia's role in invigorating framework ideas for helping define existing movements.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poeticize (talk • contribs) 21:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Poeticize—do you feel that the subject of the article or any of the assertions in the article are sourced? Where are your sources? Bus stop (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as WP:NEO so succinctly puts it: "Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." Poeticize's request to "respect the development of wikipedia's role in invigorating framework ideas for helping define existing movements" is International Art English for "support my attempt to use Wikipedia to increase the usage of the term". No, no and no. Mduvekot (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete There do seem to be some academic sources for metapainting, such as the book The Self-aware Image: An Insight Into Early Modern Metapainting, but as far as I can tell, the current article refers to a different sort of metapainting, almost like an interactive theatre approach for painting. For the current article, I have not found sources. I am happy to be proven wrong, but without independent, in-depth, reliable sources, we cannot build such an article. Hence, delete. --Mark viking (talk) 03:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Completely unsourced neologism. The term may be used elsewhere, but not in the sense that it is being used here, as indicated by Mark viking.  freshacconci  talk to me  20:34, 20 August 2016 (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.