Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neen art
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 Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 09:24Z
Neen art[edit]
Okay, nomination rewritten, see history for the old, angry one.
- nonsense and even if you read it carefully, it does not provide any context
- non-notable artists, not even if we consider neen notable
- they are writing their own bios on wikipedia (users Angeloplessas, Angelo Plessas, Dona tracy, etc; articles Angelo Plessas, Larry Carlson)
- far from encyclopedic, despite those sources; the article does not reflect anything from them, so please don't say "But there are sourceeeeeees..."
- neen is based on a hoax
- neen is basically a buzzword with no meaningful art behind it, it is "a still undefined generation of visual artists"
- neen, according to the article, "uses or abuses technology", it is a good magical thingy that use computer screens and domains and such, produces art that is "transformative and magical"
- neen is, according to Wired, a collection of animations and screenshots stolen from video games
- neen is, according to Salon, a virtual exhibition - we got TONS of those on the net, with better quality works!
- neen is, in reality, a bunch of poorly made flash animations.
- neen basically consist of some men with an enormous appetite for attention (autobio, anyone?); Wikipedia is not the place to achieve this
- neensters are speaking bold about open source and filesharing, but they arguing over "stolen techniques"
If the article on LegendaryFrog / Joseph Blanchette was deleted because the media doesn't give a shit about him, despite the >20 million views of his works and his influence on the flash scene, then THIS ARTICLE MUST DEFINITELY GO. Frigo 08:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural Query Why is Miltos Manetas tagged as an article for deletion discussion but with the tag linked to this discussion? Bwithh 23:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain, but could you try to be slightly more WP:CIVIL in your nomination? Care to give a reason for deletion other than "I don't like it"? Geoffrey Spear 21:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I was a little angry (not only at the neens); I certainly don't like the article, but the full reason: nonsense, nocontext, bio, autobio, web. For nonsense and nocontext, just read the article. For bio (notability), just look at some of their works and you'll clearly see why they are not notable (at least for their works, that is). Autobio was at least at the articles Angelo Plessas and Larry Carlson. Repost was at Angelo Plessas. I'm pretty sure they're just a failed advertising attempt of Lexicon Branding (IF the company exist) Frigo 21:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable, and probable spam --Mhking 23:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Procedural Keep Sorry, but I'm not even going to consider this nomination until the nominator restricts himself to a proper argument that leaves out uncivil remarks (i.e. read WP:NPA and restart the nom)Bwithh 23:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Delete both (if the Miltos article is under review here too? I'm still not sure) Now that the nominator has changed his statement... lack of substantial mentions in reliable source. Can only find passing trivial mentions in reliable sources for Miltos Manetas. I suggest the nominator contacts other !voters to notify of the statement change Bwithh 09:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Procedural Keep per Bwithh. Lovelac7 01:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]Speedy keep Terrible deletion nomination; moreover, the article cites multiple reputable sources. -- Kicking222 02:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 12:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Bwithh. Thanks to this sorry excuse for a nom, we have to give it a grace period before nominating it again. It's not speediable (of the delete variety) so we're stuck with it for now. Danny Lilithborne 03:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Speedy Delete Now that the nom is rewritten, I can comfortably send this to the garbage heap where it belongs. Danny Lilithborne 11:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as complete bollucks. We delete long established churches and keep stuff like this?Edison 05:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to article for Miltos Manetas. The linked sources are demonstrably about him and not his self-described art movement. Anything that can be said about this topic can be said at the creator's article until is has wider currency. I agree wholeheartedly that the original nomination was inappropriate, but I am extremely uncomfortable with allowing a bad nomination to grant any form of grace period to an article when an appropriate nomination was possible. Only problems seem to lie down that path. Serpent's Choice 09:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Much better now that nom is rewritten. Delete per nom. Fledgeling 20:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's okay and proper for the Art to defy explanation. Regrettably, nebulous topics make lousy articles. Art movements are also difficult things to write articles about; Art movement is as important as its works, and if the works are virtually unknown, well... Two news articles, also, don't prove a thing about the thing's practical notability. Especially if it's Wired (Just call them that you spent $7.50 to found an art movement online, and you get the front page). Manetas may be notable, not sure about the movement. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:48, 24 December 2006 (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.