Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamali Fine 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jamali Fine Art[edit]

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

Does not appear notable, and does not really even claim to be notable. This is the third creation, the others being viewable at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jamali Fine Art and a deleted version of this page (which looks essentially identical to the one that's live now). Earlier, I pasted a bit of explanation here but he didn't seem to be convinced, and seeing his page deleted didn't convince him either. There is also another article at Mystical Expressionism, which is a re-creation of Mystical expressionism but not really that similar to the deleted version. I believe that these articles should both be deleted, but am open to changing my opinion, art not being one of my strong areas, and so I am bringing it here for a wider view. Note: I am intending this AfD to be for both articles, but I wasn't able to find an example of how to make an AfD for two articles, so I just did the best I could. If I did something wrong please let me know. —Soap— 22:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Mystical expressionism was deleted after this AfD discussion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Little better than spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jamali Fine Art

For the two Wikipedia pages that I am entering, the author Donald Kuspit is a notable art critic, writer, and contemporary art historian who has written two published texts on the artist, Jamali. Kuspit's major essays, on Jamali's contribution to contemporary art history, mystical expressionism, have been published in several editions by Rizzoli international publications inc. For your information Rizzoli is the most significant publisher having on his list major museums all over the world and also being known to publish only the most important artists of all time. Mark Strand, who is a contributer to Jamali's art history is also is on Wikipedia along with Rizzoli international publications. Philip Bishop is a contributer to Jamali's Art History is published by Prentice Hall has published "Adventures In The Human Spirit" prescribed in schools all over America.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ARTHISTORIAN2010 (talk • contribs) — ARTHISTORIAN2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jamali Fine Art For the two Wikipedia pages that I am entering, the author Donald Kuspit is a notable art critic, writer, and contemporary art historian who has written two published texts on the artist, Jamali. Kuspit's major essays, on Jamali's contribution to contemporary art history, mystical expressionism, have been published in several editions by Rizzoli international publications inc. For your information Rizzoli is the most significant publisher having on his list major museums all over the world and also being known to publish only the most important artists of all time. Mark Strand, who is a contributer to Jamali's art history is also is on Wikipedia along with Rizzoli international publications. Philip Bishop is a contributer to Jamali's Art History is published by Prentice Hall has published "Adventures In The Human Spirit" prescribed in schools all over America. Also, the artist has been creating art professionally for the past 40 years. Also, can I share with you in the last 100 years some of the most note worthy art movements in western art history have been French impressionism, abstractionism, German expressionism, american abstract expressionism. Mystical Expressionism which is Jammli's contribution to art history, is the latest in this history. As such, I hope you can appreciate the note-worthiness it its lineage; again for your information please know that is is indeed the writers and important publishers who make the final decision of what is art history. Please share your thoughts on my comments and please let me know if there is anything else I can help you understand Jamali's historical relevancy..—Preceding unsigned comment added by ARTHISTORIAN2010 (talk • contribs) — ARTHISTORIAN2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I have rewritten the artists article ([1]) and think that should be kept now. The Mystical Expressionism article should be deleted though, relevant material can be covered in the artists article. extransit (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really not enough to show notability over thousands of other artists. No awards won for example, no major exhibitions, and lots of artists have sold far more than he has. This is simply a puff-piece designed to promote the artist, with the only refs the artist's own website and a puff-piece interview given to a local newspaper. Harry the Dog WOOF 07:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mystical Expressionism since there appear to be no third party sources that use it in any context other than about Jamali. As to the artist, I say keep, as there is extensive Orlando Sentinel coverage, and at least passing mentions [2] outside of the local area (not to mention the books written by Donald Kuspit). The article should be renamed to Jamali (artist) or similar though, since Jamali Fine Arts appears to be his company and non-notable. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2010 (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.