Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tridimensionalism

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tridimensionalism

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

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

A non-notable art-term (it is a minor notable philosophical term), being marketed as notable and created by living artist Massimo Meda. The editor of this article is preparing Draft:Massimo Meda, which I think from doing a WP:BEFORE will also fail GNG (and they also updated the main "Western Art Movements" template/navbox with "Tridimensionalism"). Outside of blogs/instagram accounts linked to Massimo Meda, there is no mention of "Tridimensionalism" in the art world, and nothing independently linking Massimo Meda to founding it. Tried to CSD this a WP:G11 but was turned down by WilyD, who felt it was better suited to AfD (i.e the language is not overly promotional). So I ask the community at AfD if they think this should be kept. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete relief does not "originated in Italy at the end of the 20th century", and " the founder of this technique" (I think they mean "inventor") was definitely not Massimo Meda. And if the article weer to say, well, that's not relief, this is a new innovative technique, because it is entirely built-up from paint, well.. impasto has been around for centuries. There's nothing to this term, except it's use as to market the work of Meda. For a list of painitng techniques that are in actual use by art historians, see http://www.getty.edu/vow/AATHierarchy?find=impasto&logic=AND&note=&page=1&subjectid=300053344 Vexations (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good analysis of the article problems by Vexations above. There is also no article on "Tridimensionalismo" in the Italian Wikipedia nor on Massimo Meda (though one was deleted as lacking content). A recent article uses the term to describe works by Meda exhibited in a shop [1] and it is used in a profile piece on an associated gallery site [2] but I am not seeing anything that indicates this to be an established term of art. AllyD (talk) 09:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's not even wrong as far as art history is concerned, and borders on fraud and a word made up in a day. First off, the specific technique described in the page has been used for decades, since at least the mid-20th Century, by Lee Bontecou, Judy Chicago, Niki de Saint Phalle, Betye Saar, and many others, particularly female artists, and the claim by a male artist to having "invented" it smacks of misogyny and trademark violation. Secondly, they called it other things; as noted above by Vexations, relief has been used for centuries as a generic term, while Amy Sillman calls it the "Shape of shapes", and Jasper Johns called this technique to "take an object.", Third, it's a fractal, not a third dimension. Finally, there's no significant coverage of this term, as noted by Britishfinance and AllyD. I think someone is trying to use our charitable organization for a web host. Based on what I see and know, I can't assume good faith. Bearian (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. An IP has tried to remove the AfD tag [3]. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Britishfinance, What an incredible coincidence that that IP geolocates to Genoa, where Meda has a gallery. Vexations (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Vexations, these guys are very determined! Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They have also started vandalising my Talk Page per [4]. Britishfinance (talk) 00:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This guy Massimo Meda has been embedding themselves into other WP articles despite being non-notable, like Vimercate, and Italian Riviera. Britishfinance (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Britishfinance, that argument in favor of the notability of the subject is one of the more convincing ones, isn't it? I'm going to take a look at the insertions. I noticed a few myself, figured I could wait until this discussion comes to its inevitable conclusion, and do it later, but why wait? After all, Non capisco la merda sull'arte! Vexations (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2019 (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.