Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebu-Arts

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. Davewild (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ebu-Arts

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

Subject appears to be a made-up new art genre that is not notable. No coverage in reliable sources that I could find. Artist not notable either. Article appears to be promotional. References are to poor quality sources. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this is some awesome self-promotion - complete with actual blog mentions! I didn't realize I could make $60K by gluing all my duplicates to a board and calling it a new genre... If our guy had done more research, he might have noticed File:Unique Postage Stamps Collage by Filipino artist Nux Suzara.jpg, plus there's that one in some museum that I can't find the commons pic of now... :-) Stan (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I disagree about the quality of the sources. Three of the sources are just the online archives of well-esteemed New Jersey-based newspapers. I would know as I was the curator interviewed by Kurt Osenlund for the Pennington Post article (source #2) and I have a physical copy in my possession. Also, those are authentic stamps being used, not duplicates. As they were collected throughout the artist's life, many of them are rare and valuable, thus contributing to the pricing of the piece. While I certainly concede that this artist may not be the originator of stamp collage styles of art, this is the first I've heard anyone try to give a formal name to the genre. Awederich (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETE Self-promotion. No evidence of anything actually being sold or even in vaguely notable galleries. And blogs are rarely acceptable sources anyway. Edwardx (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT Awederich says it is "the first I've heard anyone try to give a formal name to the genre". In other words, it is a made-up thing. In the unlikely event that this term takes off elsewhere and has some coverage in reliable sources, then it should have an article, not now. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, Stan, and Edwardx. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:39, 3 November 2011 (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.