Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy 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. Sandstein 19:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Energy Art

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

Not notable. According to this article's main contributor, this is a fledgling art movement that naturally wouldn't see significant coverage because it's new. The main contributor is also one of this "movement's" founders, so the conflict of interest is obvious. While the article appears to have many sources, most of these are self-published. The rest are locally sourced about local events that weren't especially otherwise notable. I'd outlined numerous problems with the articles a couple of months ago and explained them to the contributor, but the contributor has (for obvious reasons) been unable to fix this problems as the subject itself just isn't salvageable. The bottom line is all too familiar: Wikipedia just isn't the place to go when you want to promote yourself into notability. Wikipedia is the place to go *after* you become notable. Rklawton (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. freshacconci talktalk 20:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep After reviewing the sources, and a bit of my own research, I think it could be kept. The article really needs some work though. SarahStierch (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A personal opinion not based on facts, and an out of context malicious twist on my words - not surprising of Rklawton. I called it "fledgling" at Talk:Energy_Art relative to 2009, a year after the movement's founding. It has received significant non-local and international coverage since then, verifiable from the references (as discussed at Talk:Energy_Art). 21 of the listed 22 references are not self-published, some written by managing and fine arts editors, factually documenting the exhibits, and most can be found online. Please stick to the facts and refrain from opinionated libel, especially if hypocritical. My COI had been voluntarily disclosed on my user page thus is in good faith, and I clearly welcome constructive editing of the article by others. Vaselli (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply that's a lot of name calling and baiting and simply not appropriate. Any editor who cares to review the sources will find them all local and about local events - with no indication of notability beyond local interest. There's just no way we can call an art "movement" notable after only a couple of years Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and there's no way we can determine now whether or not the world will even remember this "movement" five years from now. Rklawton (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure promotion. I commend User:Vaselli for self-identifying and playing it straight, but I can't find an academic or significant art critic who has called this work by the name Energy Art and/or labelled it a movement. (User does himself no credit by calling a nominator names.) This seems merely a budding association of artists. I do see in sources a lot of art journalists repeating what they are told by the exhibitors. Nice try, but Wikipedia is not a megaphone or an advertising venue. BusterD (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's a worthy attempt and nicely presented with lots of interesting links, but I'm not convinced they add up to notability. Basically there are many minor sources such as brief news items posted on arts sites by galleries, i.e. not clearly independent. Insufficient notability. Maybe in a few years' time it'll be different.Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Classic how User:Vaselli immediately became defensive per nom's appropriate suggestion to "evaluate each exhibition as far as notability is concerned". Comments in themselves have COI's screaming all over them. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines and should be deleted. SaveATreeEatAVegan 05:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fully agree with nom. Seems strongly promotional to me as well. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:28, 8 February 2012 (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.