Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Signature artwork


 * 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. The primary keep argument is rooted in the article's pageview statistics, which is not a valid argument for inclusion.  A  Train talk 06:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)  A  Train talk 06:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Signature artwork

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Signature doesn't have any significance apart from its dictionary definition. Bus stop (talk) 00:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Bus stop (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

"Signature artwork" is the term being discussed, not "signature", and the term has a distinct meaning that is appropriate for discussion in an encyclopedia because it appears frequently in critical and historical discussion of fine and other types of art and artists. I have added a reference to the article that demonstrates a clear association within its definition for signature that lays a foundation for the logic of the term -- exactly as it is used in such discussions, Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the noun precisely using just this relationship, "something (such as a quality or feature) that is closely associated with someone or something" -- our encyclopedia ought to be a resource for educating our readers about terms such as this, found in discussions and descriptions they encounter regarding fine and other types of art and artists. I urge retention of the article to remain among the many articles with which we provide a clear understanding of terms encountered by our readers in other publications and discussions. Note that under the disambiguation page for "signature", several terms of similar distinction exist in diverse fields. This article is equally as relevant and clarifies the reason for the distinctive use of the term. Furthermore, |Page view statistics for the article demonstrate consistent access by our readers to explore the meaning of the term. That is evidence for its usefulness to our readers and further supports retention of the article. This alone should suffice to quell the effort to delete the article, but if not, I would be glad to pursue the discussion further if you like. Please let me know. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 02:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't know why you chose that funny views format. A more conventional one shows an average 9 views a day. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You are thinking of Wiktionary, as was pointed out in the second edit to the article and on the article Talk page. There is no need for an article telling us how the English language is used. Bus stop (talk) 03:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Using the figure of nine views per day cited by Johnbod, the annual number of views would be 3,285 per year and, therefore, since its start -- approximately 20,000 views of the article have occurred to date. I believe that may be taken as an indicator of its usefulness to our readers. It is a term frequently encountered in discussions of fine art as a concept. Serving our readers is our mission, not debating nuances in art criticism. I find no harm in retaining an article that has been useful to so many readers, little logic in the justifications for the proposed deletion, and no parallel to masterpiece or other terms discussed below as serving adequately to explain the unique concept, signature artwork. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. Also,, when you say "the term has a distinct meaning that is appropriate for discussion", it is the "meaning" that might be "appropriate for discussion", not the "term". There are other terms for the phenomenon under consideration. For instance at our Jackson Pollock article we find reference to Pollock's "classic drip-and-splash style". (He also worked in other styles, for which he is not well known.) In that instance the term "classic" is serving a purpose similar to "signature" in "signature artwork". The article "Signature artwork" is not addressing the phenomenon by which some artworks are the ones for which an artist is known. This phenomenon may or may not be a subject worthy of an article. I know of no sources addressing that phenomenon. The important point that I wish to make is that there are no sources in the article addressing this phenomenon. Mere uses of the term (signature artwork) do not constitute an investigation into the phenomenon. The sources provided merely demonstrate that the term is in use in the English language. Why would we need an article documenting the use of the phrase "signature artwork"? Bus stop (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The term relates to the artwork -- a sculpture, a painting, as being able to reveal the artist who created it (without having to see the attribution). _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 11:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge with Masterpiece, for which this is a contemporary American term. Johnbod (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The term is used -- justifying retention -- but it does not mean "masterpiece", nor explain that concept. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 11:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 *  Comment Merge I rarely disagree with the knowledgeable Johnbod on anything to do with art, but this doesn't seem to be anything like a synonym for Masterpiece. A signature artwork is, I understand, one that immediately tells the viewer 'this is by Pollock' or whoever. So we see a really colourful stripy painting and we think "Bridget Riley" as plainly as if she'd painted her name in foot-high letters right across it. A masterpiece, on the other hand, is a work acknowledged as demonstrating mastery of a craft. A viewer (not me) might find Riley's work mechanical and in no way masterly, but readily agree it was recognisable. Is the concept notable? It's certainly widely used. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, you have a point, although masterpieces are also supposed to embody the artist's personal style. It is probably more appropriate to merge & redirect it to Style_(visual_arts) (a much more highly-viewed article, 325 per day). If kept that should link to here, & vice versa. Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's very kind of you. The Style (visual arts) article looks like an ideal target. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Signature artwork may relate to a painting, a sculpture, even to a sonata -- why should it be included in a visual arts discussion? _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Why does signature refere only to established artist? Can't amateurs have a signature style as well? So many questions that point to this article being essentially Original Research. This is a term/phrase joining two words that are already very adequately described by the dictionary.96.127.242.251 (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent point. And I agree that the article is original research. A speaker could use the phrase "signature artwork" in any way that they saw fit. I would characterize this article as nailing Jell-O to a wall. Instead of saying as the first sentence says "In art, signature artwork refers to works by popular and well-established artists that are easily recognized as theirs because of unique characteristics in style, medium, or subject matter" we could, with almost as much logic, say "In art, signature artwork refers to works by obscure and lousy artists that are easily recognized as theirs because of unique characteristics in style, medium, or subject matter." The only problem with the second sentence, the one that I am concocting, is that artists early in their careers are less likely to have a style that is uniquely theirs whereas artists later in their careers are more likely have a consistent style—and yes—that style could be called their signature style. But there is no source in the article delving into any such considerations. Sources in the article are merely using the term. This is quite different from assigning any meaning to a term. To give the article the benefit of the doubt it can be logically deduced from the examples given—Pollock, Calder, Dali—that the term is associated with artists that are "popular and well-established". But to assert that deduction would be a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. We can't make an assertion about the meaning of a phrase, such as "signature artwork", based on anecdotal evidence of how it is used. Dictionaries have more latitude in this regard because dictionaries are deducing meaning from how a term is used. This article is telling us stuff about "signature artworks" that simply is not supported by sources. Bus stop (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge It's a simple adjective+noun description, synonymous with "typical work", closely related to "mature work", and usually contrasted with "student work" or "atypical work". Do any of these terms really merit an article? Ewulp (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if there is anything to merge. Bus stop (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Be optomistic, it would be a signature merger. And I say that with my signature sense of humour, while reclining in my signature style. 96.127.242.251 (talk) 06:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I neglected to mention that I do have a particular way of signing my name-- you could call it my signature signature. I think it merits an article. 96.127.242.251 (talk) 06:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I am sure a merger would be inappropriate -- and call out the unidentified ridicule as irrelevant to a discussion by users regarding a vote for deletion -- a signature artwork is a single work, not a category. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 12:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, AfD decisions are based on facts, not opinions. The outcomes here are basically either merge, redirecting to Style (visual arts), as Johnbod suggests (and I'm happy with), or delete. Bullying is always and everywhere inappropriate, but that has nothing to do with the facts of this AfD, which hinge on the lack of suitable sources, and the simple fact that it's basically just a WP:FORK (a duplicate article) of Individual style as in the article I've linked. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I have made an edit of the article incorporating changes addressing some of the points made here by editors -- that may resolve some issues. Are there any additional changes that might clarify better? _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

And the 20,000 views of the article remain significant to me for usefulness. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSUSEFUL is, I'm afraid, a classic non-argument: a duplicate (FORK) should be merged so there is one really useful article, not two half-useful ones. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if I have violated protocols I am not familiar with, Bus stop, I'm not used to these projects. Although I believe there is justification for the article, I'd be glad to collaborate on a merge, but it ought to cover more than "visual" arts (the meaning of which remains a mystery to me, having never met an artist who defines himself as such) and the article ought to include all of the fine arts such as sculpture -- for instance. An artist's "style" is not the same as a work itself that demonstrates it so clearly that no signature is needed, that is what a signature artwork is. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * —I complained to you on your Talk page about your placement of your !vote. Bus stop (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I just inspected the sources cited in the Signature artwork article and as far as I can tell not one of them even uses the term, although various "signature" things are mentioned: "signature style", "signature works", "signature colors", "signature paintings", and "signature mustache", as well as related terms such as "personal style" and "iconic paintings". None of these seem good subjects for Wikipedia articles. This ngram shows no results at all for "signature artwork" (just for comparison, "serious painting" appears steadily throughout the 20th century). Ewulp (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete The article does not seem to describe something that is distinctive to the study of art. Having a signature style seems more a quality of authorship in general, whether of painting, poetry, cooking, assembling outfits, etc. The referenced writers are using "signature" to telegraph that many other works by the same artist resemble one being described. That does not seem to be a mode of analysis (as the article implies, and which might make it encyclopedic) as much as a way of helping a reader understand that what's being discussed relates to the artist's work in general and not just the work in question.KR26740 (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think another related article, aside from Style (visual arts), is Connoisseurship, but I don't think there is anything to wp:merge into those articles. Bus stop (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2017 (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.