Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Topological painting

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 10:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Topological painting

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This is a bit tricky. The article is a sweeping, well-written, well-referenced romp through art history that has one single fundamental failing: it is complete WP:SYNTH.

The term "topological painting" appears to have been applied to Dalí’s painting of that name only, and the author has taken it and run with it - it does not seem to be used in any of the referenced sources. The author then basically presents a chronological discussion of artists that have used, for want of a better expression, playful geometry in their work. They finish up with a rather extended and borderline sourced treatment of a single artist (Igal Vardi) that gives the impression as if the entire article might have been intended just as an extended WP:COATRACK for that section.

This material would make a good review article for an academic-minded art magazine, but I don't think it can make a Wikipedia article; it's a selective art history based on personal criteria. At least some of the Igal Vardi material appears to be new and might be merged to that article. I did not check the article states of all the other artists. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(I see that Rosguill has made some similar statements on the article's talk page - sorry, should have checked that out sooner.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with nom's and Rosguill's analyses – WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. (Leonardo da Vinci – really?) Narky Blert (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the good work looking into this – and there's not much more to say. I'd also mildly oppose a redirect to Vardi as a bit promotional. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - potentially WP:A11. Definitley WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. Kirbanzo (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Earlier when I suggested redirecting on the talk page I was under the impression that borderline RS had exclusively connected Igal Vardi to the phrase "topological painting", but a quick internet search now suggests that this is not actually the case. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete. XOR'easter, Narky Blert, Deacon Vorbis, Johnbod, Kirbanzo, Rosguill ;

1. Topological painting is an innovative style developed by Igal Vardi over the past 30 years, as a painter and as an art theorist. He wrote articles on the topic of topological painting, that accompanied his exhibitions and were published in his book: “Metamorphosis - Painting Along the Way”. To read several of the articles visit Vardi’s art website: www.igalvardi.com.

2. Furthermore, Vardi interpreted Picasso's surrealist period works as topological paintings, and expanded on this in his book: “Viva Picasso - An Aesthetic Interpretation of his Art”.

3. The Wikipedia entry emphasized that the only artist in the history of art who defined some of his paintings as topological painting was Salvador Dali (these were the last works he painted in his lifetime). Topological principles were also clearly applied in the paintings of Cornelis Escher.

4. The entry also includes sources about topology from the mathematics field, but mainly from the field of psychology by the psychoanalyst Jacque Lacan.

5. I can provide documents from Prof. Shlomo Giora Shoham (Israel Prize Laureate), Prof. Moshe Zukerman (philosopher of art), Prof. Haim Hazan (anthropologist) and Prof. Gila Balas (world-renowned art scholar), attesting to Vardi’s innovative style, both theoretical and practical, as “Igal Vardi’s Topological Painting”.

6. As the editors you maintain that everything written in the entry is more suited for an academic article. However, if I may say so, you are mistaken. I say this because the theoretical background presented in the entry is reflected in Vardi’s thirty years of work, based on more than 200 paintings published in his book “Metamorphosis - Painting Along the Way”.

7. Therefore, in my opinion it is justified to publish this entry in Wikipedia under the new entry “Igal Vardi’s Topological Painting”. Ralph747 (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph747, if those documents by Shoham, Zukerman, Hazan and Balas discuss "topological painting" have been published in independent, reliable sources, then you can use those as references and establish that the the topic is notable. Have they been published in peer reviewed journals? Personally, I think graphology is a pseudoscience, Vardi a pompous fraud and topological painting a croc of shit, but that is beside the point. We only care about what the sources say. So, where are they? Vexations (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious conclusion from the above, if the sources can be shown, seems to be that an expansion of Igal Vardi may be possible. Not an attempt to universalize a newly coined term by co-opting the entirety of art history. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What Elmidae said. XOR'easter (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to Lacan, the human mind functions psycho-dynamically according to the non-linear dynamic between the three abovementioned registers, at times in a Möbius strip structure. And this is why actual mathematicians don't like Lacan. XOR'easter (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research. The section on Vardi's work can be preserved by merging it to the article on Igal Vardi. --Lambiam 17:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lambiam, If there is no choice, and the name of the article can not be substituted for ”Igal Vardi's topological painting”, at least the article should be merged with Igal Vardi’s article. Ralph747 (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Most of the content has no clear and documentable relationship with Vardi but is original research that would have to be deleted anyway, even if the article is renamed or merged with the article on Vardi. It is like a badly researched essay. Give me a citation from a reliable source for the very first statement of the article that topological painting is a painting style that began with the expressionism school. Obviously, this was made up. Then the first statement of the first section (About), that topology as a branch of mathematics represents reality through distortions. Who says so? Topology does not aim to represent reality, and when someone uses a topological mathematical model as a tool to represent an aspect of reality, it is by ignoring (abstracting away from) distortions. "Distortions" that are not topological include cutting (whether cutting open or cutting away). Since Vardi's paintings typically involve cutting of the image, calling them "topological" is a misnomer. That does not matter inasmuch as it can be reliably sourced that they are called thusly, but it shows that the statements in the article about topology as a branch of mathematics are the misbegotten fruit of original research. --Lambiam 05:03, 5 December 2018 (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.