Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interaction 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 23:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction painting[edit]

Neologism describing a non-notable new art technique. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I know that Google hits is not proof of meeting either WP:N or WP:RS, but there are so many hits for "interaction painting", that I was almost sure we had a valid article here. But the problem that I am seeing is that there is no clear definition of this. I am left to wondering if this term is being used by anyone and everyone for whatever they want it to be. I sure would like someone with some art expertise to weigh in on this.Un school 04:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...the nifty name belies the nn article which really is not happening...Modernist (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem to be a term in any sort of wide usage. I can't find any references in reliable sources, only a few blogs and unrelated uses of the term, I'd love to be proven wrong though. Cool3 (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Ty 12:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Johnbod (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2009 (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.