Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Micromentalists

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Patrick W. Welch. WjBscribe 23:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Micromentalists

Micromentalists (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Deleted by way of {{prod}}, and recreated. Orphan article. Janitorial nomination. kingboyk 23:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- —Celithemis 01:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. There are a number of sources already in the article demonstrating its notability. In fact, I volunteer to clean it up. --Mus Musculus (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Change to delete, I cannot see any way this is notable at this time. --Mus Musculus (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • 3 local papers and some random websites. That said, please do clean it up, it might be salvageable yet. --kingboyk 11:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into the founder's article if there's not enough here. To support the claim that this is an "art movement", I want good sources talking about this as a movement and not just a one-time exhibition/prank by a small group of people. Friday (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Well, I did my best to clean it up. I removed the long quotes and promo material, organized the sources, and wikified it. There are no sources backing the claim that this is a movement per se, only that Welch is trying to start a movement. I think it's notable thus far just for the involvement of notable artists, so I stand by my keep. --Mus Musculus (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  We should be seeing this as a single exhibition, not a movement, then? Not sure how I feel about that- there are tons of exhibitions. Why not cover the relevant bits about individual artists in their own articles? Friday (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Can somebody tell me what their pricing scheme has to do with the artworks? The most often mentioned point in these sources is the sliding scale pricing of these artworks. Is that of some relevance? The second most often mentioned characteristic of the artworks covered by the term that this article is about is "small." The artworks are not "monumentally" sized -- instead they are small. Are we being told anything about the visual art? Is this conceptual art? Is this performance art? Is this installation art? Maybe, maybe, and maybe. I feel that if they don't explain what they are talking about, then it is not up to me to guess what they are talking about. Either the art stands on it's own in visual terms, or the artist or his/her representative has to make an effort to explain the artwork in other terms. None of the sources explain any of this. The artist's so-called manifesto doesn't explain this. Consequently, the Wikipedia article doesn't explain any of this. Are there any cohesive qualities that join these artists and artworks together? Or just their sliding scale pricing and the small size of the works? Bus stop 15:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, I guess you guys are right. Whichever way I look at this, it doesn't seem to make the cut. --Mus Musculus (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Mus -- Y not? 04:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as section into Patrick W. Welch. Thanks to Mus Musculus we now have what would be a nice and sourced paragraph in the arcticle of the founder of this initiative. This would also allow for linking from other artists articles. --Tikiwont 07:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is an important art movement for which there is not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. Thus, the topic does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and cannot meet Wikipedia article policy standards. Without source material, the only Wikipedia option is to delete the article. -- Jreferee 23:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Response to above: How do you know it is an "important art movement?" Are you basing that on just what is available in the article and in the listed sources? I don't see how it is an "important art movement." But if you feel it is an important art movement, please tell us why you see it that way. Bus stop 03:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Actually, it's Jreferee's cut-and-paste delete, which he's used in a number of AfDs. The words "art movement" are the only ones to change from citation to citation. Obviously the approach has limitations, which no doubt closing admins take into consideration when gauging the user's argument.  RGTraynor  13:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Obviously I research the topic before I post my reasoning and in this case, there are not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. If you think there is, then list them in this AfD. If there are not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic, the article cannot meet Wikipedia article policy standards, even if the topic is important, famous, or notable. -- Jreferee 20:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, given your research, upon what basis do you consider this an "important" art movement if there are no actual sources good enough for verification purposes? Surely an opinion upon the one would have to rest upon the latter.  RGTraynor  20:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Patrick W. Welch. Enough sources to justify being kept in some form, but a few months does not a movement make. Be wary of WP:RECENTISM on this one. Caknuck 00:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merged, now redirect. I merged the material. I suggest a redirect now. Sancho 18:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.