Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-Blended Impressionism


 * 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   redirect to Roy Maloy. About half of those commenting here advocate deletion in some fashion, however some of those along with the editors favouring redirection note that it's a possible search term for Roy Maloy, therefore I've closed this AfD by redirecting. (non-admin closure) Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 00:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Non-Blended Impressionism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a term without widespread use outside of a single person, who apparently was also the editor that created the article. Fails basic notability; no book hits, nothing. A bunch of external links were removed as they were borderline spam. There is simply nothing to indicate that this is a known or accepted variant of impressionism. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete or Redirect to Roy Maloy. I found only one independent source, a small Australian newspaper article on the man, not the concept, and no evidence in reliable sources that this neologism is in wide use. Without reliable sources, this topic fails notability guidelines WP:GNG and WP:NEO, suggesting that the article should be deleted. Update: Colapeninsula made a good case below for redirect. In the interest of consensus, redirect to the artist's page is fine by me, too.--Mark viking (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as a non-notable neologism. As this is the invention of Roy McPherson (per THIS), a redirect to his biography would be perfectly appropriate, were there such a biography. Carrite (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Roy Maloy, which I now see is the stage name of the creator of the subject, Roy Macpherson. I've created a redirect for the real name to the stage name. Carrite (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per Carrite. Johnbod (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is written by Roy Maloy and makes false claims. All references to "unblended Impressionism" are made by "Roy Maloy" in small community newspaper and no such genre exists.
 * This article is in fact supported by major Australian newspaper articles
 * It was also written by myself, not Roy McPherson. I have studied art, specialising in impressionism for a number of years and this article draws on the evolution of impressionism and several other modern art styles including pop art and well known artists such as Banksy to create this article.The references deleted from this article in fact supported this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nissa13 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 9 March 2013‎ — Nissa13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete The articles DO NOT support anything in accordance Wikipedia policies as they are references ONLY made by Roy McPherson and no other person within the mentioned articles . If we are going to list qualifications here, I have a degree in fine art and have been an exhibiting artist for 20 years and know that this page is not only baldy written but completely false and misleading. It is done in a vain effort to increase the value of Roy Maloys AKA, Roy McPhersons AKA, Timothy Roy McPhersons artwork and is deceitful. It also confuses historical facts about Art genres and art history. I suggest you go back to school 01:32, 9 March 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ LlaelMcd (talk • contribs) 01:54, 9 March 2013 — LlaelMcd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete This article was clearly created to give a false impression as to the validity of the term "non-blended impressionism"


 * There is no reliable source offered, and the reference originally used has been misrepresented. The newspaper snippet did not attribute the style as one crested by the individual, rather it quoted the individual's own description of his work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.85.180 (talk) 05:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC) — 122.108.85.180 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete The image displayed is not that of a genre "Non-Blended Impressionism" but that of the Artist "Roy McPherson" Roy Maloy the person who made the false claims of pioneering this fake genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LlaelMcd (talk • contribs) 22:56, 9 March 2013‎ — LlaelMcd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * If you read through the references in this article (which were incorrectly deleted) you will see there is in fact multiple references supporting this article as a new genre of art. You will also find if you read the article correctly that this is in fact a new genre of art, so there is naturally only going to be small amounts of people who have had this term applied to them. Any person who has studied art will understand this is always the case with new genres of art. I suggest you take some time to read through the listed references carefully before commenting again.


 * In reference to the article, the artist is credit with pioneering this style, and there is no reference to him describing his own work this way.

^ Lewisohn, Cedar (2008). Street art : the graffiti revolution. New York, NY: Abrams. ISBN 9780810983205. ^ Cherbo, edited by Vera L. Zolberg, Joni Maya (1997). Outsider art : contesting boundaries in contemporary culture (1. publ. ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-58111-7. ^ Rewald, John (1979). The History of Impressionism. New York: Museum of Modern Art. ISBN 0870703606. ^ Whiting, Cécile (1997). A taste for pop : pop art, gender and consumer culture (1. publ. ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. ISBN 0-521-45004-7. Please read these references carefully and in full, before responding. Please also refrain from making personal acts, as this is a place for discussion about facts, not feelings. If you continue to make personal acttacks, you will be reported for vandalism. Nissa13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nissa13 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)  — Nissa13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Redirect to Roy Maloy, his stage name.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * After reviewing the content of this article I have added in more accurate references and evidence to support this article. Powerknow100 (talk) 09:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC) — Powerknow100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete or Redirect to Roy Maloy A very carefully crafted article full of reliable independent secondary sources which talk about everything except the actual subject of the article. The actual subject of the article appears to have received no coverage in independent reliable secondary sources and is therefore not notable. &mdash;gorgan_almighty (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete This appears to be self promotion by the artist. The term "Non Blended Impressionism" is only referred to by the artist, in relation to the artist or the journalist interviewing to the artist directly. There are no references to this term in any external publications but those in which Roy Maloy was directly involved. The term has been coined by the artist himself. No such genre exists. Artsrights (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC) — Artsrights (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You can also find independent references to this genre included in the article. As an earlier contributor has commented, please refrain from using this discussion as a personal attack on the artist, as this discussion is about creating a useful reference for people. --Powerknow100 (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC) — Powerknow100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Blended_Impressionism" source: http://www.facebook.com/RoyMcPhersonArt/posts/534346833277059 I think that just about nails the coffin shut on this one. Wikipedia is not a free self-advertizing site. If it was, we'd all have a page. The 'Roy Maloy' page undoubtedly could use an overhaul, too, if anyone's up for it. I dread to think how much unsubstantiated self-marketing rubbish is being spewed out there by 'Roy' and his 'manager'. Nobodyonahill (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC) — Nobodyonahill (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please carefully re-read the information relating to Neo-Impressionism and the sources cited here. This provides a good understanding of how new genres are created in art.
 * Redirect to Roy Maloy. Art genres are not automatically notable, they must meet WP:GNG and other policies. Wikipedia is not for publicizing your newly-invented genre. This is not a widely used stylistic term, it is something invented by one person to describe his own work. And Maloy is not a well-known artist: he seems notable if you include his circus skills but I can't find any serious critical discussion of his art, just a couple of human interest stories that say a circus performer has shown paintings. Until the term is used by art critics (plural) rather than just quoting Maloy, it's not a notable term just a neologism of Maloy's. The term is mentioned in Maloy's article, which should satisfy anybody's good-faith attempt to explain Maloy's work; making it a separate article gives the false impression that this is a movement that goes beyond Maloy. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect. The intention of this article seems to be simply promoting the artist. I say we ought to redirect to the artist's article, as Colapeninsula said. Ducknish (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as a non-notable neologism. Redirect it on the off-chance that someone might come here looking for the term, but as a stand-alone article it fails WP:GNG and the sources given have nothing to do with the term itself.  freshacconci  talk talk  02:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete The author continues to edit in the same biased and misrepresented references. There are no independent references to the artist having created or pioneered a new genre of art.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.42.209.116 (talk) 03:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC) — 203.42.209.116 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete The author has no understanding of what constitutes an art genre. The bias and missleading information on this article is nothing but neologism I suggest immediate deletion as the author seems unwilling to listen and continues to put up the same irrelevant external links. Artsrights (talk) 04:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC) — Artsrights (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete - I suggest taking a look at this link to the post on 'Roy's 'Art' wall which states "if you've ever bought one of my paintings... it just got a little more valuable...
 * keep the discussion about the article this page is for and refrain from personal attacks, as this isn't what this discussion is for.--Powerknow100 (talk) 06:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect - it is clear simply by observing the logs of the various accounts making accusatory and personal attacks that someone who has a grudge is misusing this page. The artist has clearly used the technique for a proven amount of time, and though the term may not be well known his art is. Redirect is acceptable and reasonable. Unbiased&#38;fair (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Unbiased&fairUnbiased&#38;fair (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC) — Unbiased&fair (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This is NOT a personal attack STOP PLAYING THAT CARD We are simply stating that this is SELF PROMOTION and Wikipeda frowns on this. Wether he is a good artist or not is irrelevant HE IS NOT NOTABLE. He is not mentioned in any art journals or arts networks, not had proper gallery representation and has only been active as an artist for a very short period of time. He is only known for his work in his own circles that are related to his own social media pages. Outside of this he is an unknown talent. May I suggest you make a sperate website for Non blended impressionism, link it to related topics on Wikipedia and his own website. Then you will begin the process to developing your style of art with more solid grounding. But at the moment your making a fool of this artist and yourself and making it very hard for anyone to take him or you seriously. PLEASE just be respectful of this medium, its important that wikipedia is kept factual and not used for advertising. This will continue to go around in circles until the cows come home becuase clearly you have no idea what your doing and you are not willing to listen. Artsrights (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC) — Artsrights (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Redirect per WP:NEO. I checked a few scholarly databases and I found as little as FreeRangeFrog.  I prefer a redirect to a full length article in this case because Maloy appears at least somewhat notable and is related to the topic of this article.  Andrew327 01:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. If he has indeed pioneered a new method or genre of art there would be some reputable sources to cite.  Not trying to be nasty but this does appear to be self promotion.METOKNOWONLY (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If it is a new form of art then logically there will be few references. Just because it is a newly coined term doesn't mean it isn't valid. 'Artsrights', your bitterness is showing. Admins, redirect the page and be done with this nonsense perpetrated by pettiness.. Unbiased&#38;fair (talk) 08:16, 14 March 2013 (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.