Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Numinousneoism Art


 * 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. North America1000 23:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Numinousneoism Art

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable enough for it's own article. Very little of substance written about it. Worth mentioning on the artists page (as it already is) but not substantial enough to be treated separately. noq (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per nom. Note also that the artist's website uses his Wikipedia bio as a sign of status in an unusually blatent way. There's a case for probing his notability too. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: This neologism associated with one person does not appear to have attained notability in its own right. I can find only one indication of another person using the term, in a States News Service release, via Highbeam (subscription required). Nor does its all-encompassing breadth ("The preeminent influence for creating NUMINOUSNEOISM ART are George Braque and Pablo Picasso and all previous and future art styles") indicate that it is likely to become a criterion for critical discussion. AllyD (talk) 06:36, 24 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.