Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transpressionism

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 Merge to Guity Novin. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-29 05:48Z

Transpressionism

There are no credible citations to indicate that there is, in fact, an "artistic movement." Googling the term comes up with Wikipedia, our mirrors, and several sites directly related to the artist.Bastiq▼e ^demandez 02:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Big top 02:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with Guity Novin and use as a redirect. The main reference is one newspaper article. Outside wikipedia, there are only 35 unique google hits, most of them on self-promotional web sites. Google hits including wikipedia show this article to be the main source of information on the movement. It is however part of Guity Novin's work. Also this article has been linked from many other articles[1]. These links need to be removed. Tyrenius 03:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I'll tackle the links. MER-C 03:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All done. MER-C 04:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--John Lake 06:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Guity Novin. --Alvestrand 14:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This heavy-handedness is uncalled for -- Especially in Wikipedia. Why you eradicate every reference to Transpressionism? See the talk page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.81.87.152 (talk • contribs).Virtually all contributions Transpressionism-related.

I would call this an artist's manifesto. It is interesting. In fact, it is very interesting. But I don't think it deserves a page of it's own. I think it should either be moved to the artist's page, or, if it is available somewhere else on the Internet, it should be clearly linked to from the artist's page. Ideally, an editor would boil down the ideas and present them to a reader in the article about the artist, on the artist's page. But I am not up to that task. Bus stop 22:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not artist's manifesto. This is an article about Transpressionism. Given that Stuckism (that was established in 1999, i.e. five years after the introduction of Transpressionism)has an entry ofit's own Idon't see the reason for hostility towards Transpressionism. Incidently, beside Stuckism there are other more recent movements like Transavantguardia, Neue Wilde and the School of London that have been obviously influenced by Transpressionism.140.80.199.91 18:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no hostility towards Transpressionism (if anything, this page shows interest in it), simply an observation that so far it has not been shown to meet Wikipedia's requirements for inclusion. It does not appear to have any widespread notability, as evidenced by mentions in acceptable sources. Movements with articles such as Stuckism can be verified through 40,000 google hits and mainstream media mentions. It is certainly not an evaluation of the intrinsic worth or otherwise artistically of Transpressionism. Tyrenius 02:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It is not an artist's manifesto. I know I read some interesting things in it that seemed more than slightly relevant to what I see as relevant concerns in the visual arts. I saw value in it. I didn't thoroughly study it. I would probably not agree with all of it, if I read and studied it in it's entirety. I just wanted to say it addressed concerns in visual art in the times in which we live. I don't know what an artist's manifesto is. It just seemed like it might be one to me. I like it. I think it should be linked to, from the artist's page, if it is not notable enough to warrant it's own page. And it certainly deserves restating in layman's terms. That is one of the tasks of an editor. An editor serves as a bridge between a likely reader and a piece of source material that may not be readily comprehensible to a likely reader. I don't think the primary issue is whether or not it deserves inclusion on this page or on the artist's page. The most useful thing would be a digesting and restating of the article about Transpressionism. I know that I would be interested in reading such an article. This is problem that doesn't only afflict this article. Most visual art movements and styles are afflicted by unclarity. That should be addressed by an editor. Bus stop 19:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Guinnog 02:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect any useful content to Guity Novin. I've searched several academic databases, both generic and art-related, and haven't found any instances of the use of the term "transpressionism". I also cannot find any references in several newspaper databases I've searched in. Nevertheless, if this is the word used by the artist to describe their own work, then that's obviously relevant to the article on the artist, and useful content here should certainly be merged to her article. --bainer (talk) 08:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect since there is no credible evidence that this "movement" extends beyond its originator. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Guity Novin.--Yannismarou 13:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep -- Far too many Internet sock puppet: Meat puppet interventions!! Transpressionism was introduced in 1994-1996. Stuckism, New Wilde, Transavantguardism, School of London, and Re-Modernism were introduced about 5 to 10 years later, all of which were influenced by Transpressionism. Think of what is to be gained by deletion of this page? You cannot succeed in rewriting the history. 24.81.86.162 20:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.:This user has only 10 edits, all in the last 2 days and Transpressionism-related, 6 of them to this AfD, so is probably correct regarding meatpuppetry. Tyrenius 01:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrenius or more aptly Tyranness, is the person who has started many articles on stuckism in Wiki (see her/his user page) In that page he/she claims -- perhaps with all honesty he/she could master:

I find, not infrequently, that I am editing (and sometimes starting) articles which do not have any prior personal interest for me. I also find that I am inserting edits, with which I may personally disagree or may not believe. This is in order to work towards a comprehensive, informative, authoritative and balanced encyclopedia.

Here are his other articles related to stuckism: Spectrum London the first West End commercial gallery to show the Stuckists, Go West the title of the first Stuckist artists exhibition, Stuckist demonstrations,Stuckism Photography, Art manifesto according to the article the Stuckists have made particular use of this to start worldwide movement of affiliated groups,Michael Dickinson He is a member of the Stuckist movement, and many more -- so much for being disinterested in a topic!!.I wonder what Stuckists think of meatpuppets? 24.81.86.162 01:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My particular interest is contemporary UK art. You don't need to search out the articles I've started (mainly on Stuckism, Turner Prize nominees, YBAs and FBA artists). They are on my user page. You seem to have missed out quite a few. Regarding "his articles", see WP:OWN. I suggest you also have a look at WP:NPA as you're currently violating it, as well as checking out what a meatpuppet actually is. Your observations are irrelevant as to whether this article should or should not be deleted. It will be judged in its own right. You would be better off finding reliable sources to VERIFY it. Tyrenius 04:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too few external sources (none of which seem to qualify as Reliable Sources) to label this as any kind of notable movement. When Wikipedia seems to be the major source of information on anything, that's a bad sign. Fan-1967 02:44, 29 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.