Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3D Anamorphic Street 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3D Anamorphic Street Art

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One-sentence stub. The only citation is on the image (which is copyrighted and will probably be deleted from Commons). I'm not currently really seeing enough on this term per se on Google to fill an entire article. In any case, should probably either be merged into something, or draftified or userfied until it's fleshed out enough to exist as an article (assuming that's possible). Softlavender (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think youre right Softlavender I know there is another article that mentions it, maybe someone can make a heading in there and include this. I think it might be something like street art or chalk art (the proposed article). Thanks and Im writing a response to your allegations right now. The Editor of All Things Wikipedia ^《Talk》 18:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 18:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without redirect, since this technique is not and never has been called "3D Anamorphic Street Art" but Trompe-l'œil and we already have an article on the subject. No redirect, as "3D art" has two specific meanings in art, neither of which is this: as another name for sculpture, particularly things like bas-relief which aren't always thought of as "sculptures", and as a term of art in computing for the calculations which produce 2-dimensional output which appears to depict three-dimensional objects (think Pixar). – iridescent 21:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth adding a sentence or two to the "Other forms" section of the Trompe-l'œil article to cover the chalk-on-sidewalk format, which is a particular form which I've seen in many places. BMK (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. One-sentence stubs are one thing, but this doesn't meet WP:V; its only ref (and the link doesn't work) is to an unreliable source. Miniapolis 23:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR sub-sub-stub DICDEF whatever. BMK (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is called Trompe-l'œil. Regardless of the medium or venue.--Savonneux (talk) 04:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as we have an article on it, and noting that its creator, The Editor of All Things Wikipedia, has been blocked as a sock. Doug Weller (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note (if anyone cares): I fixed the link to the citation, which had an incorrect | in it. Softlavender (talk) 04:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.