Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Aesthetic

Add links
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 keep. A merge discussion could still theoretically take place. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Aesthetic[edit]

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

New Aesthetic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability issues, since 2012 little evidence in the sourcing that this became an established term, apart from a single Atlantic blog post (from 2012), none of the sourcing meets WP:RS and all originate in 2012. Essentially a single commentator (Bridle) coined this term and tried to push it as an art movement when in actuality it was an extension of internet art commonly referred to as "post-internet." Acousmana (talk) 11:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 11:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 11:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 11:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 11:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are two entire books by other authors than Bridle dedicated to the topic. They're cited in the article. Vexations (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the v2L book: New Aesthetic New Anxieties is described as "the result of a five day Book Sprint organized by Michelle Kasprzak and led by Adam Hyde at V2_ from June 17–21, 2012." so essentially a self-published work. The second book, The New Aesthetic and Art: Constellations of the Postdigital, doesn't appear to be cited anywhere in the article itself and seems to be about the broader topic of post-digital and new media art, so not clear it refers specifically to Bridle's 2012 conception. having looked more closely, it does follow NA per Bridle, but reads like a manifesto, again, I would question notability of publication. Acousmana (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
arguably, it's vanity publishing at best, can it be viewed as equivalent to a university press? Acousmana (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Acousmana, vanity publishing at best? Are you suggesting the authors paid V2 to publish the book? You know what a vanity press is, I hope? Vexations (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
yes I know what it is, consider it cynical usage of the term, but do you actually believe they were paid an advance on this? If solely published on academic merit, was it peer reviewed? Quite likely they weren't paid, and they didn't pay anything to have it "published", it's a free book, so something akin to open access research. Can we establish notability for this publication? Acousmana (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Acousmana, there is nothing in our notability policy that say that for a subject to be considered notable, the sources themselves also need to be notable. Not just the publisher or the author, but the piece of work itself (the article, book). In this case, the publisher is in fact notable. Not that that is required. Your demand to demonstrate that the authors have received an advance is unreasonable and not supported by any policy. Vexations (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, "the sources themselves also need to be notable", the issue is reliability, that's the concern here. Acousmana (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
it was a redirect, i did that, has since been reverted, which is fair enough if editor wishes to improve a stand-alone entry, a merge with 'new aesthetic' would perhaps help in this respect. Ideally, all of this content should be in the article Internet art, rather than having separate entries, the overlap is significant, and from a historical perspective, merging all is warranted. Acousmana (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
missed that, it is the same topic though. Acousmana (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Acousmana, if you've changed your mind about deletion and you now want a merge in stead of deletion, withdraw the AfD, close it (per WP:WDAFD) and make a merge proposal instead Vexations (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
let's see if any other input is offered first. Acousmana (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plenty of sources, per discussion, and a full stand-alone article for a notable topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - topic is notable, reliable sources exist. Does not make sence to merge as suggested above. Netherzone (talk) 05:28, 27 January 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_Aesthetic&oldid=1004420574"