Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unpop Art Movement

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 6, 2005 00:58 (UTC)

Unpop Art Movement
Article about group of people (founded in 2003) "who often deal with similar cultural and aesthetic themes; generally speaking, the application of decidedly unpopular concepts via popular - often fun - media".

The article looks like vanity and is rather poorly written. There are 56 Google references, some generated by Wikipedia. I would suggest to wait until the group becomes popular enough. Pavel Vozenilek 01:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I get 115 Google hits. But anyway, Delete for vanity.  CanadianCaesar 01:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence to show that it's actually vanity? Factitious 00:51, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete self-promotion. JamesBurns 04:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete ^ditto^ Redwolf24 06:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete no-notable vanity. But I bid 71 unique Google hits. -Splash 14:59, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as self-promotion. Hall Monitor 04:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Do we know that the article was created by members of the movement solely for the purpose of promoting themselves? Factitious 00:51, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable. Article needs improvement (to get it away from vanity), not removal. Morning star 22:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem is, the article is here since October 2004 and not much improvement has been done on it. None, to be exact. Pavel Vozenilek 00:35, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's a movement with at least three members who are notable enough to have lengthy Wikipedia articles.  It's notable. Factitious 00:51, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Please note that none of those articles about the three "members" actually mention this "movement," so it can't be too significant in their lives.  Delete this and all other artists and art movements that are not documented in notable academic or industry publications or media outlets.  Self-referential vanity.  Come back after Artforum writes about them.  Postdlf 29 June 2005 05:04 (UTC)
 * Keep. If it needs improvement (and I agree that it does), improve it. I tend to think that the impact this group has made on the counterculture is well documented in texts such as Apocalypse Culture and the like.  So, it should stay, as the indivduals who are collected under the UnPop umbrella are all established artisans in their own right.  I went ahead and fixed the lead and split it into two paragraphs. blood_victory 29 June 2005 15:32 (UTC)
 * The Unpop Art Movement is not documented at all in the article Apocalypse Culture, nor do any of the artisans linked from the article make mention of it. Hall Monitor 29 June 2005 15:57 (UTC)


 * It isn't mentioned because it didn't exist as an entity when the book came out ca. 1989. This is a loose collective of like-minded individuals who happen to approach their various crafts with relatively the same jaundiced (sic) worldview. Maybe if we didn't call it a "movement" and instead focused on just how this collective is different from all others that have preceeded it in type and deed.  Dada is undefinable.  Surrealism is subjective.  UnPop is similarly in the eye of the beholder.  Neither you nor I can safely say what it is.  To delete this because one doesn't comprehend its impact on the counterculture is INDEFENSABLE.blood_victory 30 June 2005 15:38 (UTC)
 * Delete. Promotion.  Also vanity and non-notable.  Article appears to be original research too. Quale 30 June 2005 15:41 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is a legitimate art movement with active members across the country. It is a relatively new movement, so articles edited by other people may not reflect involvement. Artforum articles don't make an art movement legitimate. KevinISlaughter 30 June 2005 18:12 (UTC)
 * Delete Looks like a promotion to me. Ashibaka (tock) 30 June 2005 18:35 (UTC)
 * Delete, promocruft. ComCat 30 June 2005 19:21 (UTC)
 * Keep, and tag it for improvement. It's a notable subject, though the article needs a little work.  There is still valid content there. Superm401 | Talk July 2, 2005 15:45 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.