Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transdigital art

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. MBisanz ^talk 22:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transdigital art

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

Article about an genre of art that does not seem to notable and is possibly a neologism. The article is completely unsourced, and has a list of external links which purport to serve as notable examples. - Mr X 19:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThe 'definition' given is so broad as to be meaningless: this is a non-notable neologism, and one with poor etymology at that. And, with the exception of Richter, the 'notable' artist are not notable.TheLongTone (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The minimum that one would expect is that the given references should mention the genre that is the subject of the article; they don't. And from the text and examples, one would assume that any artist who ever does image editing (which is probably just about everyone nowadays: I know none who don't) falls into the "genre" of this article; there is already a relatively decent article at Digital art - no need for this one. AllyD (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the rationale given by the other editors above -- this is an overly broad term, most likely a neologism, that has no credible sources, clumsily applied to an artist like Richter who happens to include digital media in his later work. This is clear cherry-picking of names and unrelated sources in order to establish this term. As such, this would count as original research as the sources don't mention the term. Unless something else is produced that establishes notability, this is a clear delete. freshacconci talktalk 21:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all above. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TheLongTone. Ceoil (talk) 18:05, 16 December 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.