Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decorative Impressionism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decorative Impressionism[edit]
- Decorative Impressionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a widely used term, nor a real art movement. Based on WP:SYNTHESIS. As an example, a more credible article, based on Google hits, would be Reluctant Impressionism [1]. In other words, not good scholarship. JNW (talk) 09:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not a generally used critical term.TheLongTone (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the term is [scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q="Decorative+Impressionism"&btnG=&lr= used by scholar sources] (see ) with references to American authors like Frieseke, Chicago, discussed in the article, and several other "Decorative+Impressionism" books. Diego (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Terminology appears to have attained some currency and coverage. If there is a debate about its appropriateness or scholarship that should be included in the article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Seems to be a genuine term. Google books has several references to Frederick Carl Frieseke around 1911, 1913 and 1917, linking the term to Frieseke. It seems Christian Brinton was a well established art critic around that time. He really needs his own article! scope_creep (talk) 00:20, 07 Aug 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Per several of the above comments and more extensive searching, I'm now more inclined to agree with the rationale for keeping. That said, the article will require major cleaning and the addition of cites, since most of what's there now appears to be original research. JNW (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2013 (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.