Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artist's multiple

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. I would, however, remind Lx121 that consensus is not a vote and that you may only !vote once during an AfD discussion. That said, I am going to close this as a keep rather than re-listing a third time. (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 18:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Artist's multiple

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

the term is referenced to only one source. the common phrase for this is "limited edition artwork" or words to that effect. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Artist's multiple" is the term that I would use for the matter in question. And the first Google Books return is Stephen Bury's "Artists' Multiples 1935-2000" (ISBN 0754600750, published 2001). That said, I can appreciate the issues with the current article and will look further. AllyD (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC) A couple more examples of usage, both from The Observer: 2001 article 2002 article. AllyD (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've noticed that there is a related ongoing category rename discussion, so I am cross-referring them: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_3#Category:Artist.27s_books_and_multiples. AllyD (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 09:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article this is clearly a topic that can be covered in an encyclopedia. I am not sure what the proper name is though so the article maybe should be moved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An unreferenced distinction without a difference. Not notable. --Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep; how is it useful or "encyclopedic" to remove an entry that provides a definition for a commonly-used term in contemporary-art vocabulary!? if we have a mega-article glossary, of such terms, we could consider moving it there (although i think it's long enough to justify a separate existence. as for references (& "notability), it's not at all hard to find more of them via google... & i don't see any egregious factual errors that would entirely destroy & invalidate the merits of keeping/having an article about this topic. Lx 121 (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On the basis of my comments above and specific references as well as more general evidence of usage that have been added to the article. AllyD (talk) 09:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ok, now this deletion has been relisted TWICE; why is that exactly? the first time, maybe one could justify because the initial discussion only generated one commentor. & while they appeared to favour keeping the article, they didn't actually "vote". but the first relisting generated 2 keep (including mine) & one delete; which, taken with the commentor's position from the initial discission, should add up to a pretty solid "keep". BUT instead, we now have a SECOND "RELISTING" (which has inspired the original commentor to clarify their position to a solid "keep"...) IT IS NOT LEGITIMATE TO CONTINUALLY "RELIST" ARTICLES FOR "DISCUSSION" UNTIL ONE ACHIEVES THE OUTCOME ONE DESIRES; & if we do keep relisting endlessly, then i think it only fair to start the voting anew for each "round", & i again vote keep; so in this round that's 2-0 in favour of retaining the article. are we done yet? Lx 121 (talk) 07:54, 19 November 2012 (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.