Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yellowism


 * 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. Courcelles 22:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yellowism

 * – ( View AfD View log )

delete no significant third party sources found for this recent art movement Melaen (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This supposed art movement began on Nov. 15, 2010 and there is one blog, associated with the two self-described "yellowist" artists, offered as a reference. Delete as non-notable and unsourced.  freshacconci  talk talk  03:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom and above. As well, since the link is to a blog about the movement (and a blogspot blog no less), it seems like it's mainly promotional for said blog. d  m  z  03:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't delete First: "Interpreting Yellowism as art ... deprives Yellowism of its only purpose." so yellowism is not an art movement "It derived from the visual arts and despite this fact, is not classified as art, what is in accordance with its essence." second: the lack of references is because yellowism is "fresh" and new phenomenon. third: i see yellowism as an important point of reference for postmodern culture. so if the article will be deleted it will come back sooner or later. --Sylwiaartiomowa (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: if the article will be deleted it will come back sooner or later. When it has reliable sources attesting to its notability, that will be fine. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Made-up non-notable thing, supported by nothing more than a blogspot blog. "Yellowism is not art, Yellowism is not a Wikipedia article". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Natalia Vodianova indeed. Interesting. I wonder if she knows about it. Otherwise, made up. Mind you, every idea is made up at some time and only achieved notability later. Somehow, I can't see closed yellow rooms catching on, not even in the circles that buy sheep from Damien Whatsisname or photographs of where someone threw a stone off a cliff (that's not made up, that was real). Peridon (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't delete It is good that you can not see pieces of yellowism and yellowistic chamber as a interesting thing for circles that buy works of Damien Hirst. Why ? Because pieces of yellowism are not works of art. They buy art, so why they should like something that is not art.So,you are right--Sylwiaartiomowa (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOT and WP:MADEUP. Semantic games are tiresome. If there are no reliable sources, this article does not belong here.  freshacconci  talk talk  18:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You can only !vote once. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete – unsourced neologism. Dicklyon (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, unsourced. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 13:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, obviously not notable, only reliable results are for different uses of the term. Roscelese (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2010 (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.