Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Arts. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Arts|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Arts.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

Arts[edit]

Strike Germany[edit]

Strike Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a news source. This topic, a small number of people calling for a cultural boycott of Germany due to government support for Israel, lacks sustained, in-depth coverage. Many of the sources on the article are about other incidents, such as events cancelled in Germany due to anti-Israel views of the artist, or a violent protest that occured in Berlin. AusLondonder (talk) 06:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect I had tagged the article for notability for similar concerns. Merge targets, Israeli–Palestinian conflict? IgelRM (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See if there is more support for a Merge or Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Techspressionism[edit]

Techspressionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Techspressionism has no reliable sourcing that it is an art movement or style. The portmanteau coined by an artist, but it entirely his own invention. The references in the article point to interivews, press releases and self created website. There is no reliable sourcing. https://hamptonsarthub.com/2014/10/21/techspressionism-reflects-impact-of-japanese-aesthetics/ is a puff piece on Colin Goldberg. https://www.27east.com/arts/techspressionism-a-global-movement-with-local-roots-1933155/ refers exclusively to Goldberg's self named style. https://www.wired.com/2014/10/if-picasso-had-a-macbook-pro/ has a quote by Goldberg naming his own art. Techspressionism is part of a walled garden created by COI accounts. There is no alternative to deletion. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - please see my reasoning below. Scribe1791 (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Note to closing admin: Scribe1791 (talkcontribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]
@WomenArtistUpdates I feel that an accurate definition of Techspressionism is that it is a community of artists.
Christiane Paul, Digital Art Curator at the Whitney Museum, stated in a discussion on Techspressionism (which I moderated):
"One thing that I like about Techspressionism is that as a term, it can transcend boundaries, and in terms of the question of whether we need to clearly delineate things, I am all for openness, and I think Techspressionism already fulfills an important function if there are artists aligning themselves with that term and finding a platform to discuss issues that are relevant to their work; that is always a function that makes a term valuable."
Link - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8Glurhxyms&t=1478s Scribe1791 (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Per WP:RSP, Wired is considered a RS and I'm not sure how a quote from the artist who coined the term would invalidate that. Most of the arguments here made for Keep are completely irrelevant though. YordleSquire (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hashtag #techspressionism is widely used on social media by artists around the world to refer to their technology-based artwork, with over 71K posts using the hashtag on Instagram as of today: https://www.instagram.com/explore/tags/techspressionism. For the sake of transparency, I am the artist who coined the term, and like any term, it has an inventor. To be clear, the term was defined as neither "an art movement or style", but as an artistic approach in which technology is utilized as a means to express emotional experience. This definition was created in 2020 by a group of artists (Patrick Lichty, Steve Miller (artist), Oz Van Rosen, and myself) as well as the art historian and critic Helen A. Harrison, who is well-respected in her field. It would seem that at this point, the term became something beyond a "portmanteau" describing my work alone, although it certainly started that way. The 27 East article that you stated "refers solely to Goldberg's self-named style" is about an exhibition which I curated that was comprised of the work of more than 90 artists working with technology from over 20 countries, and thus clearly did not represent "my personal style." Moreover, to address another editor's comment in the article's revision history: "(Techspressionism) was one show, not a "movement": the activities of the community are ongoing, as evidenced by the group's monthly meetups on Zoom (Techspressionist Salons) in which artists from different countries gather to share work related to art and technology and discuss ideas. There have been 80 of these meetups since 2020, and they are archived here: https://techspressionism.com/salon/ There is also an active Techspressionists Facebook Group, to which I will post a link to this discussion, so hopefully other members of the community can weigh in on whether the term is simply a description of my own work. To state "there is no alternative to deletion" shows an unwillingness to consider any sides of this discussion other than your own. Scribe1791 (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    very well said and reasoned. seems a bit silly to dismiss this term you had originally coined and have since championed through it's growing community and reach. It evolves not only with the technology used by artists but it relevance in the art market and institutions. It that way it is like every other art style and movement that has emerged in the last few centuries. Mwoody37 (talk) 09:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Mwoody37 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment. May I? A hashtag is just a collection of letters used to signify something. It's only when the something becomes significant that the hashtag may become notable. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being only an 'occasional' editor on WP I'm not sure of how to engage in a debate here, but I will try.
1) As an artist who sees his work well described by Techspressionism as a term, I'm a bit confused as to where the deletion author comes to the conclusion that it is simply a Goldberg portmanteau. I identify my work as Techspressionist. See my work as example (https://leeday.photography).
2) As you can see from the references above in Instagram and other physical and online forums there is a substantive group of people who also identify as Techspressionist Artists.
3) Furthermore if Whitney Museum Curator of Digital Art Christiane Paul and Helen A. Harrison, Director of the Pollock-Krasner House and Study Center can debate the significance of Techspresionism (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8Glurhxyms) then it would seem a worthy subject to include in Wikipedia.
Finally, if the article needs work then I would suggest this retention category WP:POTENTIAL certainly applies. poltergeister (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Lday (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


  • Keep. The movement, while relatively new, is established, there are artists, who are considering themselves as part of it. There are exhibitions, there's a community, there are publications. One could also find it strange that the proponent of the deletion didn't engage with the editors on the talk page, but instead suggested it directly for a deletion. Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Note to closer there's a !vote on Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Techspressionism that should be included in the assesment. It's not in English but is accessible via google translate Star Mississippi 12:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like it now has been added below. Netherzone (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Wikipedia article on Techspressionism should not be a candidate for deletion. The four articles you mention with their focus on - Colin  Goldberg “ puff piece” and “self named style” do not adequately address the totality of what techspressionism is. You mention it is an art movement or style.Techspressionism is an “approach” rather than a movement or style. https://techspressionism.com/artists/. Colin Goldberg is not alone in ushering in this approach.There are a number of notable artists who are a part of this approach.https://techspressionism.com/artists/. Goldberg strives toward a model of decentralized social sculpture created by participating artists akin to the German artist, Joseph Beuys who believes that “social sculpture could potentially reshape society and politics.”
You point out articles that only speak of Colin Goldberg’s artistic practice. Take the time to do a thorough reading of the Techspressionism website. Visit the link below to see the work of other techspressionists artists such as Oz Van Rosen, Steve Miller, Patrick Lichty, and many others who join Goldberg in this approach. https://techspressionism.com/history/. Please note the number of artists listed in the index. https://techspressionism.com/artists/  Also note that techspressionism has 78.K international artists that use the hashtag #techspressionist on social media. Many of these artists meet at our monthly online salons moderated by several different artists.
The Techspressionism group advisor Helen Harrison, director of the Pollack-Kasner Museum is also an art historian, museum director, critic, artist and journalist who specializes in Modern American Art. In her interview with Colin Goldberg she discusses Techspressionism. She sees it as an “approach” that uses technology in a subjective way revealing internal feelings.See “Art in Focus: What the Heck is Techspressionism?”
Lastly, watch the interview between Christiane Paul, curator of digital Art at the Whitney Museum and Helen Harrison in a discussion focusing on Techspressionism as it relates to art historical movements of the past. https://techspressionism.com/video/roundtable/curators-in-conversation/
The Techspressionism Wikipedia article should be retained. Cynthiadidonato (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Cynthiadidonato (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment and suggestion - I have noticed that some editors are repeatedly refactoring/editing their previous comments/arguments. In an AfD it's probably best practices is to strike your earlier comment (if you change your mind) but leaving it visible, then add the changes with a notation that it is new text. For example: This is old stuff and (revised) this is new stuff. This is performed by adding <s> before the text you want to strike, followed with </s> at the end of the text you want to strike. This simple procedure helps others to follow discussions/thoughts better. Please consider doing so if your comments or !votes change. Thanks. Netherzone (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Though I'm here to argue in favor to Keep this page, I don't know Colin and I first became aware of Techspressionism in 2021 through noticing artists using the hashtag and have since become conscious of both the community and the greater sphere of Techspressionism slowly over the past couple of years.
I have found many great artists through Techspressionism as a hashtag and do believe it has gained a life beyond it's creator and the creator's inner circle, and I take note that even on the creator's website it states that anyone who claims to be a Techspressionist is a Techspressionist. It is not exclusive, and it is a way for many artists working in modern tech modes to give a name to what they do. To delete this article would be premature, I believe it is being adopted and growing more with the passing of time and with the ever increasing influx of tech in our modern art world. The entire sphere is likely still coming into focus and while there may be collective debates about what "is" or "isn't" Techspressionism on the road ahead, Techspressionism itself most certainly subsists.
It's growth is of a modern virality itself through artist profiles, posts, tags and a collective consciousness, rather than PR articles or outmoded promotions of that nature. MarioCCult (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC) MarioCCult (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Note to all participants please put your comments at the bottom of the page, such as I have done here. Click edit and scroll down. @Scribe1791: may I suggest you close up the spacing in your comment so editors don't think it's finished. That's what's leading to some of the astray comments landing in the middle of yours. (To be clear, there's nothing wrong with yours, people just don't realize you're not done). Thanks. Star Mississippi 02:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @Star Mississippi - I am not exactly sure how to do that without messing up the formatting of the entire thread, as my technical expertise here is fairly limited - if you are able to assist, that would be great. Scribe1791 (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe I've done so, leaving your keep and your further comment distinct, but please feel free to restore if you think a line break was key to your meaning. Thank you Star Mississippi 01:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for guidance As of March 13 a major contributor to the article Techspressionism has WP:CANVASSed on Instagram, Facebook, and their own talk page. What are the suggested next steps to get this conversation back on track and within the recognized Wikipedia boundaries of discussion? Thanks. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @WomenArtistUpdates, in your request for deletion it appears that your primary concern is that Techspressionism is simply a "portmanteau" that describes my personal artistic output, with no sourcing to prove otherwise. I have made other members of the Techspressionist community aware of this discussion so that they can weigh in, and actually stated above that I would post a link to the discussion on the Techspressionists Facebook Group. There was no effort made to disguise this action, as it was publicly stated directly. Is this something that is inappropriate if the very fact of whether there are other artists who identify with the term appears to be the primary issue? I was not aware of the term "canvassing" (within the context of Wikipedia) until looking it up just now, or the fact that obtaining public opinion outside Wikipedia is a no-no. It was also brought up in the discussion for deletion above (by a contributor I have no familiarity with) that you did not first raise your concerns in the article's talk page first. Wouldn't this approach be more aligned with a collaborative spirit, versus your declaration that "there is no alternative to deletion"? Lastly, regarding the question of sourcing referring to Techspressionism as a movement, I would point particpants in this discussion here. NB: it was not me who wrote the article, or its headline. Scribe1791 (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-هنرمندانی از سراسر دنیا خودشان را با اصطلاح Techspressionism
    همراه دیدند و از این هشتگ استفاده کرده اند.
    Colin Goldberg
    هرگز از این از کلمه بعنوان به عنوان سازمان یا سبک استفاده نکرده و ازاین کلمه به منظور روش یا رویکرد استفاده کرده . اصطلاحی فرامرز که باعث همراهی هنرمندان زیادی از سراسر جهان شده و امروز هشتگ آن به 71.8 هزار رسیده است .
    ورود این اصطلاح به
    مثال دیگری از تایید این اصطلاخ می باشد . لطفا تمام منابع را مطالعه بفرمایید . Oxford University Press بعنوان یک لغت
    SAHARMOUSSAVI (talk) 02:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC) SAHARMOUSSAVI (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - I'm holding off on !voting on this AfD for now and am debating whether or not to spend the time to do a source analysis chart, which I may do after the SPA activity dies down. Regarding the subject, Techspressionism, I think it has cultural value, however am doubtful if it has encyclopedic value.
In the meantime, I've worked up some Google N-gram charts for the term/movement/style in relation to all these other terms: Techspressionism, Techspressionist art, Digital art, Computer art, Digital painting, Computer painting, Electronic art, New Media art, Multimedia art, Digital media art, Generative art, Systems art, Ars Electronica, Virtual art, Cybernetic art, Art and science, Technology and art, Augmented reality, Generative art, Algorithmic art, Computer graphics, - and came up cold with ZERO hits for Techspressionism and Techspresionist art in relation to these other terms. I will place screenshots of these on the talk page of this AfD. (Don't know how long these screenshots will remain on talk, they might be taken down by Commons.)
I also found zero hits on google books other than Colin Goldberg's self-published Blurb book. And found zero hits on JSTOR, zero hits on Oxford Art Online, zero hits on entire WP Library.

:I do think, however, there is a viable alternative to deletion. This article could be redirected to or merged with Colin Goldberg, Digital art Netherzone (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Netherzone; thanks for your thoughtful note on my user talk page; the links you provided did provide insight and make sense to me. I think that your proposal that the Techspressionism article and the Colin Goldberg merge makes sense; however I would like to see what you think about the proposal that the Colin Goldberg article should go away and be redirected to the Techspressionism article, or simply be deleted, if that makes more sense. I feel that Techspressionism is certainly more notable than I am as an individual artist, as it has grown into a sizable community with many other artists involved. For instance, we have our first museum show coming up in Brooklyn this summer, for which I am not a curator. The other artists in the group feel strongly about the importance of this community, and in this video, Whitney museum curator Christiane Paul discussed the importance of Techspressionism, not me as an individual artist. Regarding the Ngrams you posted, they are based on Google results up to 2019 and Techspressionism did not formulate into an artist group until 2020, so the outcome that there are minimal results in comparison to longstanding terms such as Digital art is predictable. However, Google shows about 12,300 results for "Techspressionism" vs About 4,990 results for "Colin Goldberg". I feel that Techspressionism is not a subset of Digital art and should not be merged into this article, as it encompasses artforms such as painting and sculpture. In fact, the term was created because of the inadequacy of Digital art as a term to describe work that is physical but created with the aid of technology, (such as my own, and that of many others in the community). Please let me know what you think about this line of reasoning. Also, I think the Techspressionism article should be the one that remains of the two since the article has already been deemed B-class (I'm not even really sure what that means), and the Colin Goldberg article is start-class. Certainly, I would add that any edits required to establish a neutral tone should be made. @WomenArtistUpdates, and @Netherzone, what are your thoughts about this proposed solution, and the rationale behind it? Scribe1791 (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply][reply]
Scribe1791 Please read and think about the articles suggested to you on your talk page. I don't think you are understanding Wikipedia's policies about COI editing/involvement and behavior on talk pages and AFD pages. Your discussion fails to brings in any established wikipedia policies as reason for keep. I believe the article is WP:PROMO and fails WP:GNG. Please read WP:PRIMARY. Thanks. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WomenArtistUpdates I read them, and respectfully disagree with your position. Note to closer: a cursory Google Scholar search on Techspressionism yields these results. I realize that the actual academic papers are behind a paywall, but I would assume that Google Scholar can capably index their contents. I also submit that the Master's thesis on the topic of Techspressionism by Vivian Lazaridou is currently under review by her university in Greece and was given to me by the author to post on the community website for feedback on a page with writings by notable artists in the community, as well as a short essay by art historian and critic Helen A. Harrison on the topic. Scribe1791 (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"respectfully disagree with your position" is a disingenuous statement after having smeared the nominator's good reputation across multiple off-Wiki online platforms by calling them a "hater" and canvassing a flock of COI single purpose accounts to support your position. That is not how things normally work in this community. There is no hatred going on. Experienced editors like the nominator – who BTW has created over 850 articles most of which are on under-known notable women artists who slipped though the cracks of history – are here to uphold the integrity of the encyclopedia. Challenging the notability of an article is not personal, you only think it is because of your COI and use of undisclosed paid editors in the past to promote yourself and your "movement". Netherzone (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone and @WomenArtistUpdates I apologize for my emotional response on social media, and I have removed the offending statement from my Instagram post. It felt personal, I suppose, especially after I saw the recent effort to strike the term from Wiktionary as well as Wikipedia. However, I do disagree on the issue of notability. @Netherzone, the very sources that the nominator took issue with in their nomination are the same ones that you identified as valid sources for the article on Colin Goldberg, on the article's talk page; " Wired is an excellent source that's contextually relevant to the work. 27East.com looks fine as well esp. since it's an affillate of the Southhampton Press, East Hampton Press and Sag Harbor Express newspapers and Hampton's Art Hub looks good too." Regarding my sharing this nomination for deletion with others, I guess I am not accustomed to the culture here. I still fail to understand why my notifying other artists in the community regarding this nomination for deletion is somehow wrong. I invited other artists to the discussion, not "COI single-purpose accounts". The box that is at the top of this page reads "If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. " I hope that this is still the case. Not that this is relevant in any way to this discussion, but I will say that I share the nominator's (assumed) sentiment that the art world in general is skewed in terms of gender politics, and have made a conscious effort towards gender equality and general cultural diversity in any curatorial (or other) aspects of this project because I believe this is extremely important, and in fact, a responsibility. I am the father of a daughter and I believe this is the way it should be, for what it's worth. I have said all I can say on this matter of whether or not Techspressionism should exist on Wikipedia. Consensus will decide, as it should. Scribe1791 (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scribe1791, Well, now I feel it is my time to chime in...you have completely depleted WP:AGF. Netherzone attempted to work with you until they were unable to escape or overlook the COI editing. We have tried to point you to relevant WP policies but still you do not read or hear the messages. You are editing disruptively by WP:DONTGETIT and WP:BLUDGEONING. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Scribe1791 Please refrain from continually refactoring your comments here. Your last comment had 22 different revisions. This makes it hard for others to get a grip on what you are trying to communicate from moment to moment. You have been reminded of this twice already. Please use the strike-out feature described above. This AfD has become quite messy. Let us try to keep it an orderly process. Netherzone (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having conducted a research on Techspressionism, that lasted 6 months, to complete my academic dissertation for my Masters degree I would argue that the proposal to delete the Wikipedia article is a rather rush one. Techspressionism, while not characterized by a distinct artistic style or certain guidelines, themes and artistic aspects an artist should follow to fall within the term, is still a valid artistic approach that resonates with many artists, many of which I have personally interviewed. If one studies material on art and technology, they will be able to understand the need for Techspressionism in the art world and how it differs from digital art. My research was based upon various sources where I explained in detail how Techspressionism is linked to art movements that came before it. Like all art movements, Techspressionism is still in a stage where it is developing through its community. I suggest you give my dissertation, which was linked by Colin Goldberg, a read, it was evaluated and it will be soon be published on my university's repository.Viv98 (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Viv98 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some input, especially analysis of available source material, from non-canvassed editors would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is always a lag between what is new and what is established. It would be refreshing to see that wikipedia recognizes the magnitude of this international 21st century art movement that is turning technology into a creative tool to express all the reactions, responses, emotions that traditional artists have used traditional art materials in the past...and that our actual scope is international is pretty amazing and we need to be acknowledged as legitimate. HollyGoLightlyGordon (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)HollyGoLightlyGordon (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete (changing my !vote to delete after viewing the excellent source analysis table below.) Merge with Colin Goldberg or delete - I've been giving this AfD a lot of thought; and after an in-depth analysis of the sources, I concluded that Techspressionism is not Wiki-notable. The article sources focus on Goldberg himself, and works in his solo show titled "Techpressionism", his "manifesto" and curatorial perspective on his concept "Techpressionism". One source mentions another artist who used the term "Techpressionism", which Goldberg believes he himself coined, and so decided to create a "movement" and self-published a Blurb book titled "Techspressionism," on a group show curated by Goldberg titled "Techspressionism: Digital and Beyond" for which an art historian wrote a short forward, apparently as part of her job as the gallery director. The subject of the article is indeed a WP:NEOLOGISM that seems to exist mainly to promote Goldberg, thus is falls into WP:PROMO. While there are several excellent, well-known and Wiki-notable artists who exhibited in the group show, notability is not inherited from them. The rest of the sources are interviews with Goldberg (mostly about his own work), blog or bloggish sources, and hyper-local coverage from the area where the solo and group show took place. If it were truly a "movement" we would be seeing lots of scholarly research about it in art history books; maybe there will be in a number of years, but it is currently WP:TOOSOON. Based on the sourcing it fails WP:GNG. A viable option to deletion is to merge parts of the content with Colin Goldberg, the obvious target for the merge. Netherzone (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noticed there was off-wiki canvassing on Twitter as well as Facebook & Instagram as mentioned in a comment above. Sigh. Netherzone (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sorry to prolong this discussion but I echo the previous relist and request we get a source analysis here. Consensus is clearly caught between Keeping this article and Merging it and a source review would be helpful. This means listing all sources, in the article and those mentioned here, and assessing their indepdence and reliability, not general statements on how they are insufficient. I just want to note that not all editors arguing to Keep this article are brand new editors who have been canvassed, they may not be proficient editors but they do have some editing experience. Also, aside from the nominator, there is no support for Delete so it looks like this article's content will be somewhere on the project, either Merged to another article or as a standalone article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

source analysis[edit]


Source assessment table: prepared by [[User:WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)]][reply]
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.wired.com/2014/10/if-picasso-had-a-macbook-pro/ Yes Yes No The source discusses Colin Goldberg No
https://www.wliw.org/radio/captivate-podcast/april-19th-2022-colin-goldberg-shirley-ruch/ Yes No This is a local arts listing for WLIR No The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail No
https://www.danspapers.com/2022/04/techspressionism-movement-southampton/ No No This is an local arts listing and interview No non-sig coverage No
https://aaqeastend.com/commentary/curators-gallery-colin-goldberg-at-glenn-horowitz-bookseller-east-hampton/ No No This is an local arts listing and interview No reprint of Colin Goldberg's manifesto No
https://hamptonsarthub.com/2014/10/21/techspressionism-reflects-impact-of-japanese-aesthetics/ No No local coverage No non-sig coverage No
https://www.pbs.org/video/point-h5mrkp/ Yes No AHA! A House for Arts is a local public television program presented by WMHT. No No
https://web.archive.org/web/20230112102024/https://www.beyondphotography.online/interviewed-oz-van-rosen/ ? No interview No interview with Oz Van Rose No
https://www.southamptonartscenter.org/techspressionism No No listing for show on the Southampton Arts Center gallery website No promotional material No
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/editors-picks-may-3-2021-1960431 Yes No listing for lecture “NFT Now” a Techspressionism Zoom No passing mention No
https://jameslanepost.com/colin-goldberg-curator-of-techspressionism/05/23/2022/Hamptons-News-Happenings/ No No local coverage No interview with Colin Goldberg No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Source assessment table: prepared by User:WomenArtistUpdates
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://hamptonsarthub.com/2014/10/21/techspressionism-reflects-impact-of-japanese-aesthetics/ No No local coverage No non-sig coverage No
https://www.easthamptonstar.com/arts/2022421/expressive-technology No No local coverage No non-sig coverage No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Working on getting the coding right for the 12 citations. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC) Can't get 12 to show. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The source analysis is very helpful. I have also read the article, and the rest of the comments here, and I am not in any sense convinced about notability. A student dissertaion, for example, is no measure of notability as it is defined here. Maybe that where the issue lies. The definition of notability as used by Wikipedia; and on that definition, notability is not met and the article fails to meet the requirements of WP:GNG.  Velella  Velella Talk   17:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per the source analysis, it is also blatant self promotion. Theroadislong (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as shown by the source analysis, this really isn't notable; it clearly could be promotional. If deletion can't be achieved, then a merge or redirect would do, this is not an encyclopedic article in its own right. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if the result of this discussion ends with delete, then Colin Goldberg should also be sent to WP:AFD because that would fail WP:NARTIST if this movement isn't notable. Theroadislong (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sourcing is not quite there as established in the chart above.Bikerose (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sources don't show notability. The list of artists in the article is unsourced, and five random ones that I've checked don't mention the term. Looks like a promo article or maybe it's just too early - maybe in five years it should be recreated. Artem.G (talk) 09:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Two things. First, a round of applause for @User:WomenArtistUpdates for the great source analysis, and second, I'd count Wired towards RS at least partly, but it's still not enough. I stand by my previous !vote (redir to Goldberg). --Ouro (blah blah) 16:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's some pretty obvious meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry going on here. There are multiple new accounts, which have never edited outside of this discussion, voicing their opinion in favor of keep.--Panian513 18:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The source analysis above illustrates the lack of needed coverage at the moment. If further, reliable coverage is published in the future, then this article should return and be rewritten accordingly, but at the moment, this fails WP:Notability.--Panian513 18:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arts Templates for deletion[edit]

Arts Proposed deletions[edit]


Visual arts[edit]

Techspressionism[edit]

Techspressionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Techspressionism has no reliable sourcing that it is an art movement or style. The portmanteau coined by an artist, but it entirely his own invention. The references in the article point to interivews, press releases and self created website. There is no reliable sourcing. https://hamptonsarthub.com/2014/10/21/techspressionism-reflects-impact-of-japanese-aesthetics/ is a puff piece on Colin Goldberg. https://www.27east.com/arts/techspressionism-a-global-movement-with-local-roots-1933155/ refers exclusively to Goldberg's self named style. https://www.wired.com/2014/10/if-picasso-had-a-macbook-pro/ has a quote by Goldberg naming his own art. Techspressionism is part of a walled garden created by COI accounts. There is no alternative to deletion. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - please see my reasoning below. Scribe1791 (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Note to closing admin: Scribe1791 (talkcontribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]
@WomenArtistUpdates I feel that an accurate definition of Techspressionism is that it is a community of artists.
Christiane Paul, Digital Art Curator at the Whitney Museum, stated in a discussion on Techspressionism (which I moderated):
"One thing that I like about Techspressionism is that as a term, it can transcend boundaries, and in terms of the question of whether we need to clearly delineate things, I am all for openness, and I think Techspressionism already fulfills an important function if there are artists aligning themselves with that term and finding a platform to discuss issues that are relevant to their work; that is always a function that makes a term valuable."
Link - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8Glurhxyms&t=1478s Scribe1791 (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Per WP:RSP, Wired is considered a RS and I'm not sure how a quote from the artist who coined the term would invalidate that. Most of the arguments here made for Keep are completely irrelevant though. YordleSquire (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hashtag #techspressionism is widely used on social media by artists around the world to refer to their technology-based artwork, with over 71K posts using the hashtag on Instagram as of today: https://www.instagram.com/explore/tags/techspressionism. For the sake of transparency, I am the artist who coined the term, and like any term, it has an inventor. To be clear, the term was defined as neither "an art movement or style", but as an artistic approach in which technology is utilized as a means to express emotional experience. This definition was created in 2020 by a group of artists (Patrick Lichty, Steve Miller (artist), Oz Van Rosen, and myself) as well as the art historian and critic Helen A. Harrison, who is well-respected in her field. It would seem that at this point, the term became something beyond a "portmanteau" describing my work alone, although it certainly started that way. The 27 East article that you stated "refers solely to Goldberg's self-named style" is about an exhibition which I curated that was comprised of the work of more than 90 artists working with technology from over 20 countries, and thus clearly did not represent "my personal style." Moreover, to address another editor's comment in the article's revision history: "(Techspressionism) was one show, not a "movement": the activities of the community are ongoing, as evidenced by the group's monthly meetups on Zoom (Techspressionist Salons) in which artists from different countries gather to share work related to art and technology and discuss ideas. There have been 80 of these meetups since 2020, and they are archived here: https://techspressionism.com/salon/ There is also an active Techspressionists Facebook Group, to which I will post a link to this discussion, so hopefully other members of the community can weigh in on whether the term is simply a description of my own work. To state "there is no alternative to deletion" shows an unwillingness to consider any sides of this discussion other than your own. Scribe1791 (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    very well said and reasoned. seems a bit silly to dismiss this term you had originally coined and have since championed through it's growing community and reach. It evolves not only with the technology used by artists but it relevance in the art market and institutions. It that way it is like every other art style and movement that has emerged in the last few centuries. Mwoody37 (talk) 09:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Mwoody37 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment. May I? A hashtag is just a collection of letters used to signify something. It's only when the something becomes significant that the hashtag may become notable. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being only an 'occasional' editor on WP I'm not sure of how to engage in a debate here, but I will try.
1) As an artist who sees his work well described by Techspressionism as a term, I'm a bit confused as to where the deletion author comes to the conclusion that it is simply a Goldberg portmanteau. I identify my work as Techspressionist. See my work as example (https://leeday.photography).
2) As you can see from the references above in Instagram and other physical and online forums there is a substantive group of people who also identify as Techspressionist Artists.
3) Furthermore if Whitney Museum Curator of Digital Art Christiane Paul and Helen A. Harrison, Director of the Pollock-Krasner House and Study Center can debate the significance of Techspresionism (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8Glurhxyms) then it would seem a worthy subject to include in Wikipedia.
Finally, if the article needs work then I would suggest this retention category WP:POTENTIAL certainly applies. poltergeister (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Lday (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


  • Keep. The movement, while relatively new, is established, there are artists, who are considering themselves as part of it. There are exhibitions, there's a community, there are publications. One could also find it strange that the proponent of the deletion didn't engage with the editors on the talk page, but instead suggested it directly for a deletion. Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Note to closer there's a !vote on Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Techspressionism that should be included in the assesment. It's not in English but is accessible via google translate Star Mississippi 12:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like it now has been added below. Netherzone (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Wikipedia article on Techspressionism should not be a candidate for deletion. The four articles you mention with their focus on - Colin  Goldberg “ puff piece” and “self named style” do not adequately address the totality of what techspressionism is. You mention it is an art movement or style.Techspressionism is an “approach” rather than a movement or style. https://techspressionism.com/artists/. Colin Goldberg is not alone in ushering in this approach.There are a number of notable artists who are a part of this approach.https://techspressionism.com/artists/. Goldberg strives toward a model of decentralized social sculpture created by participating artists akin to the German artist, Joseph Beuys who believes that “social sculpture could potentially reshape society and politics.”
You point out articles that only speak of Colin Goldberg’s artistic practice. Take the time to do a thorough reading of the Techspressionism website. Visit the link below to see the work of other techspressionists artists such as Oz Van Rosen, Steve Miller, Patrick Lichty, and many others who join Goldberg in this approach. https://techspressionism.com/history/. Please note the number of artists listed in the index. https://techspressionism.com/artists/  Also note that techspressionism has 78.K international artists that use the hashtag #techspressionist on social media. Many of these artists meet at our monthly online salons moderated by several different artists.
The Techspressionism group advisor Helen Harrison, director of the Pollack-Kasner Museum is also an art historian, museum director, critic, artist and journalist who specializes in Modern American Art. In her interview with Colin Goldberg she discusses Techspressionism. She sees it as an “approach” that uses technology in a subjective way revealing internal feelings.See “Art in Focus: What the Heck is Techspressionism?”
Lastly, watch the interview between Christiane Paul, curator of digital Art at the Whitney Museum and Helen Harrison in a discussion focusing on Techspressionism as it relates to art historical movements of the past. https://techspressionism.com/video/roundtable/curators-in-conversation/
The Techspressionism Wikipedia article should be retained. Cynthiadidonato (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Cynthiadidonato (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment and suggestion - I have noticed that some editors are repeatedly refactoring/editing their previous comments/arguments. In an AfD it's probably best practices is to strike your earlier comment (if you change your mind) but leaving it visible, then add the changes with a notation that it is new text. For example: This is old stuff and (revised) this is new stuff. This is performed by adding <s> before the text you want to strike, followed with </s> at the end of the text you want to strike. This simple procedure helps others to follow discussions/thoughts better. Please consider doing so if your comments or !votes change. Thanks. Netherzone (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Though I'm here to argue in favor to Keep this page, I don't know Colin and I first became aware of Techspressionism in 2021 through noticing artists using the hashtag and have since become conscious of both the community and the greater sphere of Techspressionism slowly over the past couple of years.
I have found many great artists through Techspressionism as a hashtag and do believe it has gained a life beyond it's creator and the creator's inner circle, and I take note that even on the creator's website it states that anyone who claims to be a Techspressionist is a Techspressionist. It is not exclusive, and it is a way for many artists working in modern tech modes to give a name to what they do. To delete this article would be premature, I believe it is being adopted and growing more with the passing of time and with the ever increasing influx of tech in our modern art world. The entire sphere is likely still coming into focus and while there may be collective debates about what "is" or "isn't" Techspressionism on the road ahead, Techspressionism itself most certainly subsists.
It's growth is of a modern virality itself through artist profiles, posts, tags and a collective consciousness, rather than PR articles or outmoded promotions of that nature. MarioCCult (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC) MarioCCult (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Note to all participants please put your comments at the bottom of the page, such as I have done here. Click edit and scroll down. @Scribe1791: may I suggest you close up the spacing in your comment so editors don't think it's finished. That's what's leading to some of the astray comments landing in the middle of yours. (To be clear, there's nothing wrong with yours, people just don't realize you're not done). Thanks. Star Mississippi 02:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @Star Mississippi - I am not exactly sure how to do that without messing up the formatting of the entire thread, as my technical expertise here is fairly limited - if you are able to assist, that would be great. Scribe1791 (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe I've done so, leaving your keep and your further comment distinct, but please feel free to restore if you think a line break was key to your meaning. Thank you Star Mississippi 01:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for guidance As of March 13 a major contributor to the article Techspressionism has WP:CANVASSed on Instagram, Facebook, and their own talk page. What are the suggested next steps to get this conversation back on track and within the recognized Wikipedia boundaries of discussion? Thanks. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @WomenArtistUpdates, in your request for deletion it appears that your primary concern is that Techspressionism is simply a "portmanteau" that describes my personal artistic output, with no sourcing to prove otherwise. I have made other members of the Techspressionist community aware of this discussion so that they can weigh in, and actually stated above that I would post a link to the discussion on the Techspressionists Facebook Group. There was no effort made to disguise this action, as it was publicly stated directly. Is this something that is inappropriate if the very fact of whether there are other artists who identify with the term appears to be the primary issue? I was not aware of the term "canvassing" (within the context of Wikipedia) until looking it up just now, or the fact that obtaining public opinion outside Wikipedia is a no-no. It was also brought up in the discussion for deletion above (by a contributor I have no familiarity with) that you did not first raise your concerns in the article's talk page first. Wouldn't this approach be more aligned with a collaborative spirit, versus your declaration that "there is no alternative to deletion"? Lastly, regarding the question of sourcing referring to Techspressionism as a movement, I would point particpants in this discussion here. NB: it was not me who wrote the article, or its headline. Scribe1791 (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-هنرمندانی از سراسر دنیا خودشان را با اصطلاح Techspressionism
    همراه دیدند و از این هشتگ استفاده کرده اند.
    Colin Goldberg
    هرگز از این از کلمه بعنوان به عنوان سازمان یا سبک استفاده نکرده و ازاین کلمه به منظور روش یا رویکرد استفاده کرده . اصطلاحی فرامرز که باعث همراهی هنرمندان زیادی از سراسر جهان شده و امروز هشتگ آن به 71.8 هزار رسیده است .
    ورود این اصطلاح به
    مثال دیگری از تایید این اصطلاخ می باشد . لطفا تمام منابع را مطالعه بفرمایید . Oxford University Press بعنوان یک لغت
    SAHARMOUSSAVI (talk) 02:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC) SAHARMOUSSAVI (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - I'm holding off on !voting on this AfD for now and am debating whether or not to spend the time to do a source analysis chart, which I may do after the SPA activity dies down. Regarding the subject, Techspressionism, I think it has cultural value, however am doubtful if it has encyclopedic value.
In the meantime, I've worked up some Google N-gram charts for the term/movement/style in relation to all these other terms: Techspressionism, Techspressionist art, Digital art, Computer art, Digital painting, Computer painting, Electronic art, New Media art, Multimedia art, Digital media art, Generative art, Systems art, Ars Electronica, Virtual art, Cybernetic art, Art and science, Technology and art, Augmented reality, Generative art, Algorithmic art, Computer graphics, - and came up cold with ZERO hits for Techspressionism and Techspresionist art in relation to these other terms. I will place screenshots of these on the talk page of this AfD. (Don't know how long these screenshots will remain on talk, they might be taken down by Commons.)
I also found zero hits on google books other than Colin Goldberg's self-published Blurb book. And found zero hits on JSTOR, zero hits on Oxford Art Online, zero hits on entire WP Library.

:I do think, however, there is a viable alternative to deletion. This article could be redirected to or merged with Colin Goldberg, Digital art Netherzone (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Netherzone; thanks for your thoughtful note on my user talk page; the links you provided did provide insight and make sense to me. I think that your proposal that the Techspressionism article and the Colin Goldberg merge makes sense; however I would like to see what you think about the proposal that the Colin Goldberg article should go away and be redirected to the Techspressionism article, or simply be deleted, if that makes more sense. I feel that Techspressionism is certainly more notable than I am as an individual artist, as it has grown into a sizable community with many other artists involved. For instance, we have our first museum show coming up in Brooklyn this summer, for which I am not a curator. The other artists in the group feel strongly about the importance of this community, and in this video, Whitney museum curator Christiane Paul discussed the importance of Techspressionism, not me as an individual artist. Regarding the Ngrams you posted, they are based on Google results up to 2019 and Techspressionism did not formulate into an artist group until 2020, so the outcome that there are minimal results in comparison to longstanding terms such as Digital art is predictable. However, Google shows about 12,300 results for "Techspressionism" vs About 4,990 results for "Colin Goldberg". I feel that Techspressionism is not a subset of Digital art and should not be merged into this article, as it encompasses artforms such as painting and sculpture. In fact, the term was created because of the inadequacy of Digital art as a term to describe work that is physical but created with the aid of technology, (such as my own, and that of many others in the community). Please let me know what you think about this line of reasoning. Also, I think the Techspressionism article should be the one that remains of the two since the article has already been deemed B-class (I'm not even really sure what that means), and the Colin Goldberg article is start-class. Certainly, I would add that any edits required to establish a neutral tone should be made. @WomenArtistUpdates, and @Netherzone, what are your thoughts about this proposed solution, and the rationale behind it? Scribe1791 (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply][reply]
Scribe1791 Please read and think about the articles suggested to you on your talk page. I don't think you are understanding Wikipedia's policies about COI editing/involvement and behavior on talk pages and AFD pages. Your discussion fails to brings in any established wikipedia policies as reason for keep. I believe the article is WP:PROMO and fails WP:GNG. Please read WP:PRIMARY. Thanks. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WomenArtistUpdates I read them, and respectfully disagree with your position. Note to closer: a cursory Google Scholar search on Techspressionism yields these results. I realize that the actual academic papers are behind a paywall, but I would assume that Google Scholar can capably index their contents. I also submit that the Master's thesis on the topic of Techspressionism by Vivian Lazaridou is currently under review by her university in Greece and was given to me by the author to post on the community website for feedback on a page with writings by notable artists in the community, as well as a short essay by art historian and critic Helen A. Harrison on the topic. Scribe1791 (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"respectfully disagree with your position" is a disingenuous statement after having smeared the nominator's good reputation across multiple off-Wiki online platforms by calling them a "hater" and canvassing a flock of COI single purpose accounts to support your position. That is not how things normally work in this community. There is no hatred going on. Experienced editors like the nominator – who BTW has created over 850 articles most of which are on under-known notable women artists who slipped though the cracks of history – are here to uphold the integrity of the encyclopedia. Challenging the notability of an article is not personal, you only think it is because of your COI and use of undisclosed paid editors in the past to promote yourself and your "movement". Netherzone (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone and @WomenArtistUpdates I apologize for my emotional response on social media, and I have removed the offending statement from my Instagram post. It felt personal, I suppose, especially after I saw the recent effort to strike the term from Wiktionary as well as Wikipedia. However, I do disagree on the issue of notability. @Netherzone, the very sources that the nominator took issue with in their nomination are the same ones that you identified as valid sources for the article on Colin Goldberg, on the article's talk page; " Wired is an excellent source that's contextually relevant to the work. 27East.com looks fine as well esp. since it's an affillate of the Southhampton Press, East Hampton Press and Sag Harbor Express newspapers and Hampton's Art Hub looks good too." Regarding my sharing this nomination for deletion with others, I guess I am not accustomed to the culture here. I still fail to understand why my notifying other artists in the community regarding this nomination for deletion is somehow wrong. I invited other artists to the discussion, not "COI single-purpose accounts". The box that is at the top of this page reads "If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. " I hope that this is still the case. Not that this is relevant in any way to this discussion, but I will say that I share the nominator's (assumed) sentiment that the art world in general is skewed in terms of gender politics, and have made a conscious effort towards gender equality and general cultural diversity in any curatorial (or other) aspects of this project because I believe this is extremely important, and in fact, a responsibility. I am the father of a daughter and I believe this is the way it should be, for what it's worth. I have said all I can say on this matter of whether or not Techspressionism should exist on Wikipedia. Consensus will decide, as it should. Scribe1791 (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scribe1791, Well, now I feel it is my time to chime in...you have completely depleted WP:AGF. Netherzone attempted to work with you until they were unable to escape or overlook the COI editing. We have tried to point you to relevant WP policies but still you do not read or hear the messages. You are editing disruptively by WP:DONTGETIT and WP:BLUDGEONING. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Scribe1791 Please refrain from continually refactoring your comments here. Your last comment had 22 different revisions. This makes it hard for others to get a grip on what you are trying to communicate from moment to moment. You have been reminded of this twice already. Please use the strike-out feature described above. This AfD has become quite messy. Let us try to keep it an orderly process. Netherzone (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having conducted a research on Techspressionism, that lasted 6 months, to complete my academic dissertation for my Masters degree I would argue that the proposal to delete the Wikipedia article is a rather rush one. Techspressionism, while not characterized by a distinct artistic style or certain guidelines, themes and artistic aspects an artist should follow to fall within the term, is still a valid artistic approach that resonates with many artists, many of which I have personally interviewed. If one studies material on art and technology, they will be able to understand the need for Techspressionism in the art world and how it differs from digital art. My research was based upon various sources where I explained in detail how Techspressionism is linked to art movements that came before it. Like all art movements, Techspressionism is still in a stage where it is developing through its community. I suggest you give my dissertation, which was linked by Colin Goldberg, a read, it was evaluated and it will be soon be published on my university's repository.Viv98 (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Viv98 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some input, especially analysis of available source material, from non-canvassed editors would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is always a lag between what is new and what is established. It would be refreshing to see that wikipedia recognizes the magnitude of this international 21st century art movement that is turning technology into a creative tool to express all the reactions, responses, emotions that traditional artists have used traditional art materials in the past...and that our actual scope is international is pretty amazing and we need to be acknowledged as legitimate. HollyGoLightlyGordon (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)HollyGoLightlyGordon (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete (changing my !vote to delete after viewing the excellent source analysis table below.) Merge with Colin Goldberg or delete - I've been giving this AfD a lot of thought; and after an in-depth analysis of the sources, I concluded that Techspressionism is not Wiki-notable. The article sources focus on Goldberg himself, and works in his solo show titled "Techpressionism", his "manifesto" and curatorial perspective on his concept "Techpressionism". One source mentions another artist who used the term "Techpressionism", which Goldberg believes he himself coined, and so decided to create a "movement" and self-published a Blurb book titled "Techspressionism," on a group show curated by Goldberg titled "Techspressionism: Digital and Beyond" for which an art historian wrote a short forward, apparently as part of her job as the gallery director. The subject of the article is indeed a WP:NEOLOGISM that seems to exist mainly to promote Goldberg, thus is falls into WP:PROMO. While there are several excellent, well-known and Wiki-notable artists who exhibited in the group show, notability is not inherited from them. The rest of the sources are interviews with Goldberg (mostly about his own work), blog or bloggish sources, and hyper-local coverage from the area where the solo and group show took place. If it were truly a "movement" we would be seeing lots of scholarly research about it in art history books; maybe there will be in a number of years, but it is currently WP:TOOSOON. Based on the sourcing it fails WP:GNG. A viable option to deletion is to merge parts of the content with Colin Goldberg, the obvious target for the merge. Netherzone (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noticed there was off-wiki canvassing on Twitter as well as Facebook & Instagram as mentioned in a comment above. Sigh. Netherzone (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sorry to prolong this discussion but I echo the previous relist and request we get a source analysis here. Consensus is clearly caught between Keeping this article and Merging it and a source review would be helpful. This means listing all sources, in the article and those mentioned here, and assessing their indepdence and reliability, not general statements on how they are insufficient. I just want to note that not all editors arguing to Keep this article are brand new editors who have been canvassed, they may not be proficient editors but they do have some editing experience. Also, aside from the nominator, there is no support for Delete so it looks like this article's content will be somewhere on the project, either Merged to another article or as a standalone article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

source analysis[edit]


Source assessment table: prepared by [[User:WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)]][reply]
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.wired.com/2014/10/if-picasso-had-a-macbook-pro/ Yes Yes No The source discusses Colin Goldberg No
https://www.wliw.org/radio/captivate-podcast/april-19th-2022-colin-goldberg-shirley-ruch/ Yes No This is a local arts listing for WLIR No The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail No
https://www.danspapers.com/2022/04/techspressionism-movement-southampton/ No No This is an local arts listing and interview No non-sig coverage No
https://aaqeastend.com/commentary/curators-gallery-colin-goldberg-at-glenn-horowitz-bookseller-east-hampton/ No No This is an local arts listing and interview No reprint of Colin Goldberg's manifesto No
https://hamptonsarthub.com/2014/10/21/techspressionism-reflects-impact-of-japanese-aesthetics/ No No local coverage No non-sig coverage No
https://www.pbs.org/video/point-h5mrkp/ Yes No AHA! A House for Arts is a local public television program presented by WMHT. No No
https://web.archive.org/web/20230112102024/https://www.beyondphotography.online/interviewed-oz-van-rosen/ ? No interview No interview with Oz Van Rose No
https://www.southamptonartscenter.org/techspressionism No No listing for show on the Southampton Arts Center gallery website No promotional material No
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/editors-picks-may-3-2021-1960431 Yes No listing for lecture “NFT Now” a Techspressionism Zoom No passing mention No
https://jameslanepost.com/colin-goldberg-curator-of-techspressionism/05/23/2022/Hamptons-News-Happenings/ No No local coverage No interview with Colin Goldberg No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Source assessment table: prepared by User:WomenArtistUpdates
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://hamptonsarthub.com/2014/10/21/techspressionism-reflects-impact-of-japanese-aesthetics/ No No local coverage No non-sig coverage No
https://www.easthamptonstar.com/arts/2022421/expressive-technology No No local coverage No non-sig coverage No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Working on getting the coding right for the 12 citations. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC) Can't get 12 to show. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The source analysis is very helpful. I have also read the article, and the rest of the comments here, and I am not in any sense convinced about notability. A student dissertaion, for example, is no measure of notability as it is defined here. Maybe that where the issue lies. The definition of notability as used by Wikipedia; and on that definition, notability is not met and the article fails to meet the requirements of WP:GNG.  Velella  Velella Talk   17:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per the source analysis, it is also blatant self promotion. Theroadislong (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as shown by the source analysis, this really isn't notable; it clearly could be promotional. If deletion can't be achieved, then a merge or redirect would do, this is not an encyclopedic article in its own right. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if the result of this discussion ends with delete, then Colin Goldberg should also be sent to WP:AFD because that would fail WP:NARTIST if this movement isn't notable. Theroadislong (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sourcing is not quite there as established in the chart above.Bikerose (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sources don't show notability. The list of artists in the article is unsourced, and five random ones that I've checked don't mention the term. Looks like a promo article or maybe it's just too early - maybe in five years it should be recreated. Artem.G (talk) 09:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Two things. First, a round of applause for @User:WomenArtistUpdates for the great source analysis, and second, I'd count Wired towards RS at least partly, but it's still not enough. I stand by my previous !vote (redir to Goldberg). --Ouro (blah blah) 16:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's some pretty obvious meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry going on here. There are multiple new accounts, which have never edited outside of this discussion, voicing their opinion in favor of keep.--Panian513 18:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The source analysis above illustrates the lack of needed coverage at the moment. If further, reliable coverage is published in the future, then this article should return and be rewritten accordingly, but at the moment, this fails WP:Notability.--Panian513 18:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Pierre Price[edit]

Michael Pierre Price (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not finding anything to substantiate the notability of this artist per WP:NARTIST nor WP:GNG. The article is mainly referenced to primary sources from a group exhibition called "Techspressionism", in which he showed an artwork. An online BEFORE search finds lots of social media, and user-submitted content, and more primary sources. I found one good news source, [1] but that is not enough to put him over the bar, as what is needed are multiple, independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. WP:COI seems evident. Netherzone (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a disagreement over the quality of sources found. It would be great if those brought up in this discussion could be added to the article. And also, does the article creator, User:Gwanwata have a response here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not finding sufficient RS sourcing for this article. The coverage is mostly local (Arizona) of regional shows. The artist is not part of any notable collections, nor been part of any notable exhibitions. There is no reliable sourcing for biographical information presented. The article is WP:PROMO and fails WP:ARTIST. I am finding nothing to bring it up to notable. Sentences like "In 2010 he made the bold decision to leave the gaming industry behind and pursue his new calling as a Techspressionist artist. Combining his technical expertise with artistic vision, he began creating unique and thought-provoking artworks that explore the relationship between technology and human expression." are not encyclopedic. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I fail to see how the article subject meets GNG, and there is no indication the artist meets the notability criteria for visual artists, NARTIST. There is one good source, AZ Sun, but the other one mentioned above by Hobit is a two paragraph modified press release announcing the show, it's a very week source. Netherzone (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Netherzone. I am the subject of this article and I understand that I have a conflict of interest, but I would like to work through the process to fix the issues here. I am in uncharted waters with regards to how Wikipedia operates, but I do believe I have substantive sources on both the game design side of my career and also for my art career. What I have done in my 30 years as a game designer is much greater than my art career, but I am hopeful that there is a good case to be made on my behalf for me as an artist and game designer. However, let me say that my sources are strong for the game industry as I have reviewed the Wikipedia pages of past colleagues this week. I would appreciate any guidance you might have in how best to move forward. I have new sources that are not currently being used in my article, but I don't know how to present them and who to present them to, since it looks like I should not make edits here on my own because of the conflict of interest. Thank you for your attention and help. ConradJens (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ConradJens, Thank you for your message and for disclosing that you are the subject of the article, welcome to Wikipedia. You are free to post on this AfD discussion. Just so you know, in compliance with WP:COI you should not edit articles about yourself or close associates or family (other than minor corrections and things like punctuation fixes), and if you create any new articles they should be run through Articles for Creation, rather than created directly in article space.
COI editing is discouraged because introduces systemic bias into the encyclopedia, as well as potenital original research and non-neutral material, and promotional content.
If you have sources to share about your work in the game industry, post those references and links here for assessment. At this time the article only has one decent source, the Arizona Sun article. A general rule of thumb is there should be three solid references that are significant coverage published in reliable sources that are fully independent of the subject to definitively establish notability.
Good sources would be newspaper articles (not press releases, calendar listings or the like); reviews about your work, games, or publications in reliable sources (not blogs, social media, or primary souces like user-submitted content, interviews, etc.); book chapters or significant coverage in journal articles about you or your work. These should be independent, not written by your or your close associates or colleagues. Wikipedia is interested in what neutral others have said about you and/or your work in reliable sources, not what one says about themself. This is how the integrity of the encyclopedia is maintained. Hope that helps. Netherzone (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone, I would like to address the issues in two stages. I'd like to first deal with any of the source problems with my game design career that have been brought up. And then afterward in separate comments I will work on providing more sources for my art career. One thing I am baffled by is the complete removal of my design work at Coleco. I have sources for this so this needs to be addressed. First off - TSR. I worked at TSR from 1980-1983.
Dungeons & Dragons Expert Rulebook ISBN: 0-935696-29-6 copyright 1980/1 (Credit inside front cover)
https://www.americanroads.us/DandD/DnD_Expert_Rules_Cook.pdf (pdf included to show my credit)
https://www.legrog.org/biographies/michael-price (this source demonstrates game design credits for Gamma and products and the french translations that I worked on for the French version of D&D) And legrog.org is source reference [1] on The Cleansing War of Garik Blackhand Wikipedia page.
https://web.archive.org/web/20050122225806/http://www.pen-paper.net/rpgdb.php?op=showcreator&creatorid=3085 (an additional source showing some of my credits while at TSR.) pen-paper.net is an external link mentioned on Patrick Lucien Price and Lawrence Schick Wikipedia pages.
ps://ia802909.us.archive.org/4/items/Space_Gamer_42/Space_Gamer_42.pdf (this is the review article of They've Invaded Pleasantville which is source reference [2] on They've Invaded Pleasantville Wikipedia page and the review mentions Michael Price as the game designer.)
The copyrights of the products I worked on establish my timeframe as a game designer at TSR.
https://www.mobygames.com/company/7532/indigo-moon-productions-inc/ (this source demonstrates most of the games that Indigo Moon Productions developed and back up the statement on my Wikipedia page.) Additionally, mobygames.com is an accepted resource for Wikipedia pages of a number game industry individuals. In particular, mobygames.com is source reference [2] for game designer Lawrence Schick who is a former colleague on mine.
https://rawg.io/games/dragon-dice (this source demonstrates that Indigo Moon Productions was the developer of the Dragon Dice game for Interplay.)
As for Coleco game design references, I present the following sources.
Michael Price - MobyGames (again this an accepted resource on a number of Wikipedia pages related to the game industry.)
I believe that these sources address the issues brought up for the game design section and also establishes a solid foundation for keeping the article on Michael Pierre Price. Addressing the issues with the art career section will follow in the next few days. Thank you for your attention. ConradJens (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is a mess, but I agree with Hobit. Much of it could be/should be deleted, particularly the WP:PROMO parts, but there are sufficient sources for a stub. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The two sources Hobit noted are good enough to establish notability. TLAtlak 03:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - I have a sincere question to the experienced editors or watchers. I may have missed some guideline changes about notability criteria for BLPs – things do change quickly around here – but I can't find anything about changes to GNG or NARTIST. It's always been my understanding that at least THREE solid sources that are independent, significant coverage, and published in a reliable sources (national or international being preferred over local) were required. Q: Is one good-quality local source, and one local press release/calendar event all it takes now to establish the notability of a person? Netherzone (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Netherzone,
This question might warrant a talk page discussion on the pertinent policy page. But my understanding about the "law of Three" (that's my term, not Wikipedia's), is that editors in AFD frequently ask for the best three reliable sources (sometimes out of dozens included in the article) as a way of gauging whether or not a subject is notable. It's not a policy guideline or recommendation, it comes from a User essay, User:RoySmith/Three best sources. But it's a valid question to ask to help AFD discussion focus on what's important. Unfortunately, over time, it has been misunderstood by some editors as being a policy rule but it's just a shorthand to help editors come to a decision on whether or not sufficient sourcing exists and to cut through refspam on some articles. But, by contrast, our BLPPROD guide only requires one reliable source to be preesnt on an article to prevent deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Liz! I guess I'm still a bit confused; I understand it applies to BLPPROD. Could you please, when you have a moment, clarify if that means that GNG and/or NARTIST is met by only one reliable source? (The reason I'm asking here is I'm considering withdrawing the nom if that is the case.) Netherzone (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG does say sources, plural. -- asilvering (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There's currently just a single source (Arizona Daily Sun) providing anything close to significant coverage in a reliable source, and that looks like just fairly routine coverage of a local art show. ConradJens says above that they are the subject of the article, and that they have possible additional sources. It could be moved to ConradJens user space if they want to try to cut back the unsourced promotion and add reputable sources for everything. Elspea756 (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello. I am copying this message here because it was placed above in direct response to my ongoing conversation with Netherzone a couple of days ago, but I see that new comments need to be added here. My apologies if I initially posted this comment in the wrong place. I am trying to make sure the information I am providing helps address some of the issues previously identified.
    Netherzone, I would like to address the issues in two stages. I'd like to first deal with any of the source problems with my game design career that have been brought up. And then afterward in separate comments I will work on providing more sources for my art career. One thing I am baffled by is the complete removal of my design work at Coleco. I have sources for this so this needs to be addressed. First off - TSR. I worked at TSR from 1980-1983.
    Dungeons & Dragons Expert Rulebook ISBN: 0-935696-29-6 copyright 1980/1 (Credit inside front cover)
    https://www.americanroads.us/DandD/DnD_Expert_Rules_Cook.pdf (pdf included to show my credit)
    https://www.legrog.org/biographies/michael-price (this source demonstrates game design credits for Gamma and products and the french translations that I worked on for the French version of D&D) And legrog.org is source reference [1] on The Cleansing War of Garik Blackhand Wikipedia page.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20050122225806/http://www.pen-paper.net/rpgdb.php?op=showcreator&creatorid=3085 (an additional source showing some of my credits while at TSR.) pen-paper.net is an external link mentioned on Patrick Lucien Price and Lawrence Schick Wikipedia pages.
    https://ia802909.us.archive.org/4/items/Space_Gamer_42/Space_Gamer_42.pdf (this is the review article of They've Invaded Pleasantville which is source reference [2] on They've Invaded Pleasantville Wikipedia page and the review mentions Michael Price as the game designer.)
    The copyrights of the products I worked on establish my timeframe as a game designer at TSR.
    https://www.mobygames.com/company/7532/indigo-moon-productions-inc/ (this source demonstrates most of the games that Indigo Moon Productions developed and back up the statement on my Wikipedia page.) Additionally, mobygames.com is an accepted resource for Wikipedia pages of a number game industry individuals. In particular, mobygames.com is source reference [2] for game designer Lawrence Schick who is a former colleague on mine.
    https://rawg.io/games/dragon-dice (this source demonstrates that Indigo Moon Productions was the developer of the Dragon Dice game for Interplay.)
    As for Coleco game design references, I present the following sources.
    Michael Price - MobyGames (again this an accepted resource on a number of Wikipedia pages related to the game industry.)
    I believe that these sources address the issues brought up for the game design section and also establishes a solid foundation for keeping the article on Michael Pierre Price. Addressing the issues with the art career section will follow in the next few days. Thank you for your attention.
    ConradJens (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, I checked at least the first few links when you originally posted them. They don't change my view, as they are as you say just "credits". Yes, they show you worked on these projects, but what we are looking for is what is described at WP:GNG, which is basically in-depth coverage by reliable sources, like multiple paragraphs written in a book or a reputable newspaper. Elspea756 (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the sources provided by ConradJens do little to better the case for meeting WP:GNG. But, wouldn't the review of They've Invaded Pleasantville in The Space Gamer contribute toward meeting WP:CREATIVE? See #3 "major role" in work that was critically reviewed? How many of these would be needed? -- Jaireeodell (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you cite the review you are describing? Elspea756 (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Barton, William A. (August 1981). "Capsule Reviews". The Space Gamer. Steve Jackson Games (42): 31. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the links ConradJens, however these are databases, credits, name-checks or user-submitted content. In the same way that WP does not consider IMDb a reliable source to establish notability for actors/film industry professionals, so not so sure about these. As part of a WP:BEFORE, per WP guidelines and RSP, a search for game industry reliable sources, but unfortunately did not get any results. It's clear that you did this work, but what I can't find is significant coverage of your role in these works as analyzed by independent industry experts to fulfill GNG. I know it's disappointing, and I'm sorry for that, but what is needed are more than mentions. Agree with @Elspea756 above. Netherzone (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Netherzone
    Here is a book interview done where I am one of six Coleco game development team members interviewed.
    Coleco: The Official Book (ISBN-10: 2924581060 ISBN-13: 978-2924581063) Michael Price interview pages 185-196. The interview covers my time at TSR, my work at Coleco, and my work after Coleco. 2600:8800:122:4A00:6DEE:364F:687F:E669 (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Netherzone
    Sorry, I was not logged in previously. My apologies for the previous post just above.
    Here is a book interview done where I am one of six Coleco game development team members interviewed.
    Coleco: The Official Book (ISBN-10: 2924581060 ISBN-13: 978-2924581063) Michael Price interview pages 185-196. The interview covers my time at TSR, my work at Coleco, and my work after Coleco.
    ConradJens (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'm not sure whether to close this as No consensus or relist but reading this discussion over (again), it feels like we are still in the middle of a discussion, not the end. Can we have any more opinions on the source offered? It would be great if this could be in a Deletion sort for Video Games.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*'Comment Thank you for the suggestion Liz. I will add it to Games. The subject does not meet notability for artist. Indeed, the subject of the article would prefer it be focused on game design career. If the article isn't edited into notable under those criteria, I would vote for . --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC) Sorry--- I cant find a category specifically on video games, and I have already voted for delete.[reply]

  • Found video games. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've looked at the review of "They've Invaded Pleasantville" that ConradJens and Jaireeodell have asked us to look at. It is on page 35 of this 48 page pdf, numbered as page 31 in the upper right of the page. It is 5 paragraphs that say nothing about Michael Price other than that they are the designer of this game. This does not provide significant coverage of Michael Price (see WP:SIGCOV). Jaireodell asks if this would satisfy WP:CREATIVE #3 which says says "significant or well-known work ... must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." No, this does not show that They've Invaded Pleasantville is a significant and well-known work, and this is a single review, not multiple independent reviews. My advice remains: WP:TNT and put in the effort to start over in user space. If there is a decent article that could be made on this topic, I'd be happy to see it, but if one is possible it is currently buried under so much unsourced self-promotion like "Leveraging the experience gained with 3D immersive entertainment" etc that I am not seeing it. Elspea756 (talk) 00:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello. It appears we have been talking past each other and that may be because of my lack of understanding what you all are looking for. I had been attempting to provide sources to back up the statements that had indicated the previous sources were not acceptable and I have done that, but apparently the real issue is the significant coverage, so here goes:
    Game Industry
    (1) https://www.newspapers.com/image/110332711/ and https://www.newspapers.com/image/110332797/ This is a significant article from the Louisville Courier-Journal business section dated March 22, 1998 regarding Indigo Moon Productions and Fierce Harmony, interviewing Michael Price.
    (2) Coleco: The Official Book (ISBN-10: 2924581060 ISBN-13: 978-2924581063) Michael Price interview pages 185-196. The interview covers my time at TSR, my work at Coleco, and my work after Coleco.
    Art Industry
    (3) Math & art: The enigmatic creations of Michael Pierre Price | Cover Story | azdailysun.com (archive.org) Arizona Daily Sun which has been indicated above is a reliable source. The archived link provided here actually is the entire interview.
    (4) 'Call Me Ishmael' art exhibit experiments with augmented reality (downtowndevil.com) September 6, 2021 Interview of Michael Pierre Price about his solo art exhibition Call Me Ishmael. The Downtown Devil is run through Arizona State University.
    I hope this helps address the concerns expressed with regards to significant coverage. ConradJens (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete with 2 or 3 good sources, he is not quite there. Article also lacks proper sourcing, so if it is kept, it needs to be trimmed down.Bikerose (talk) 01:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems notable in two fields and per ConradJens' and others comments and sourcing research. Meets GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

source analysis[edit]


Source assessment table: prepared by User:WomenArtistUpdates
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.phoenixmag.com/2016/12/01/artist-of-the-month-michael-pierre-price/ Yes ? No Local coverage of No Strangers – Annual Members’ Exhibition at Art Intersection in Gilbert, from December 13-January 7. No
https://www.playform.io/editorial/callmeishmael No No "Playform" is an AI product. This is the product website No Interview No
https://azdailysun.com/flaglive/cover_story/math-art-the-enigmatic-creations-of-michael-pierre-price/article_68547405-3390-5da4-8e86-cca1d83de1c2.html Yes Yes This is an local arts listing and interview No non-sig coverage No
https://www.nwitimes.com/uncategorized/d-day-50th-anniversary-in-a-farmhouse-in-france-they/article_12f6cb0f-77e4-5f7a-8dec-d8d2f4230807.html ? ? an article about D Day? ? behind paywall. can't access ? Unknown
https://aaqeastend.com/contents/aaq-portfolio-southampton-arts-center-exhibit-art-techspressionism-digital-beyond/ ? ? AAQ Portfolio Essay Southampton Arts Center no text. Promotion of 2022 show No non-sig coverage No
https://www.playform.io/editorial/michael/ No No "Playform" is an AI product. This is the product website No No
https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/ajp/article-abstract/47/6/531/1051174/Nonrelativistic-contribution-to-Mercury-s?redirectedFrom=fulltext Yes Yes 1979 academic paper "Nonrelativistic contribution to Mercury’s perihelion precession" ? ? ? Unknown
https://artintersection.com/event/maps-enigmatic-landscape/ No No Art Intersection is a local gallery No promotional listing for MAPS: Enigmatic Landscape is a solo exhibition of digital prints by Michael Pierre Price shown in the Jewel Gallery at the Coconino Center for the Arts in Flagstaff, AZ. No
https://thewrong.org/Cyberiana No No Virtual exhibtion - no idea if it is juried No passing mention No
https://www.mesacc.edu/arts/event/2023-02/future-printmaking-survey-graphic-arts Yes No local coverage No event listing for "The Future of Printmaking: A Survey of the Graphic Arts" at Mesa Community College No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

The remainder of the citations are to pages at https://techspressionism.com/ a non-independant soucre and one more - https://www.lafleurartworks.com/event-22-secondary-page-1-2023 an event listing. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a biography, this isn't subject to WP:NCORP, so there is no audience requirement. Therefore, I'd consider the first and third sources in this table to be GNG sources. ~ A412 talk! 05:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT, article is a mess, almost the entirety of the prose fails NPOV and is cited to primary sources. That being said, per my reply above to the source assessment table, I think he's mildly notable. ~ A412 talk! 05:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Visual arts - Proposed deletions[edit]

Visual arts - Images for Deletion[edit]

Visual arts - Deletion Review[edit]


Architecture[edit]

Prince Abdulaziz bin Musa'ed Sports City[edit]

Prince Abdulaziz bin Musa'ed Sports City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. The SNG says that stadiums are not presumed notable and must meet GNG. There is only one source and it is just a very brief database type listing on the ministry of sports website. I'm generally more lenient than the guidelines on stadiums but this one misses the guidelines by a mile. Tagged by others for sources since December with you additions since the tagging. North8000 (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to Ḥaʼil, It says it's a multi-use stadium, so merge and redirect to the city it's in. Govvy (talk) 09:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The stadium opened in 1981. There ought to have been lots of print and broadcast media coverage when plans to build it were announced and when it was officially opened. I don't read Arabic, though, and I don't know where I would find archives of Saudi media from around 1981. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 13:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kooi-Ying Mah[edit]

Kooi-Ying Mah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only 2 articles link to this. Nothing in gnews or Australian database trove. 2 small mentions in google books. Fails WP:ARCHITECT. LibStar (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not ready to vote Keep or delete but want to comment that it is irrelevant if a modern day Australian is not in Trove. Trove is not the only place to look especially if the person is fairly young. Trove newspapers and magazines are generally "digitised up to 1954, with select newspapers and gazettes contributed up to present day (rights and funding permitting)." As an example, a better place to look would be in recent Australian architectural journals through EBSCO or JSTOR.LPascal (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She gets no hits in Jstor. LibStar (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Like many AFDs these days, we need more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghayebi Dighi Mosque[edit]

Ghayebi Dighi Mosque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Not to be confused with the extant Gayebi Mosque in Balaganj Upazila).

All the information about Ghayebi/Gayebi/Gayibi Dighi (a pond) in the two cited sources is: "Simultaneously a good number of sites were explored. These include ..., Gayebi Dighi Mound, ... [in a list of more than a dozen sites]" and "Gayibi Dighi at Bara Thakuri (a stone inscription of 400 years old, now preserved in the Bangladesh national museum, has been discovered from this dighi)". Neither of the sources mention a mosque.

The author of the article asserted, "There are enough sources on the web if searched in Bengali". That is contradicted by my experience. The only other reliable source I could find in any language is another brief mention of the inscription.[4] With zero reliable sources about the mosque (if there ever was one), the topic fails WP:GNG. It is unsuitable for merging or redirection, let alone for a stand alone article. Worldbruce (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture Proposed deletions[edit]


Categories[edit]

Requested moves[edit]

See also[edit]

Transcluded pages[edit]

The following pages are transcluded here following from relationships among WikiProjects

Other pages[edit]

Wikipedia:Wikiproject deletion sorting/visual arts Wikipedia:Wikiproject deletion sorting/architecture

((Category:Wikipedia deletion sorting|arts)) ((Category:wikiproject arts|deletion))