Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New realism

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 13:26, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New realism

Was marked as speedy but isn't a candidate. Reason given for deletion (by User:Sponge) was "Absolutely no google hits pertaining to it, and looks to be self promotion. Non Notable." — Gwalla | Talk 01:57, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This is a major movement involving one of the two or three most famous living artists in the world and several other prominent ones. Google "New realism Christo" Philip 04:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Bogus VFD.--Centauri 05:23, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Not a bogus VfD. When I see an article marked for speedy that doesn't seem to be a candidate, but I don't know whether it's notable or not, I put it on VfD so the folks here can establish things. Would you rather I'd just speedied it? — Gwalla | Talk 06:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I 'd rather you checked for actual notability before pre-emptorily listing on VFD, which according to current policy is intended as a last resort, not a first line of attack. Listing obviously notable subjects for deletion wastes time and energy that can be better spent elsewhere. --Centauri 07:18, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: The article itself did not establish notability. Establishing notability for an article that doesn't seem so is part of what VfD is for—if it wasn't, then everything would be handled by the speedy process. I rescued it from speedy, and you should note that I haven't actually voted in this VfD at all—the nomination was a simple statement of the facts. I'm happy to see keep votes from people who know more about the subject, but I don't appreciate baseless accusations of bad faith. — Gwalla | Talk 23:53, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • The 'first line of attack' was CSD, which Gwalla correctly rejected. The article itself is decidedly stubby, and I can see where the question of notability would arise for a nonexpert. I'm pleased to see that Gwalla is willing to seek community consensus through VfD rather than arbitrarily decide that something is 'obviously' notable or (worse) not. Plus, having it on VfD for a few days cuts down on the likelihood that someone else will speedy it inappropriately. That said, a bit more time with Google is always a good thing. Keep. --TenOfAllTrades 02:35, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stubs are not justifiable deletion targets, and major art movements comprised of wildly famous artists don't require the approval of the community to establish their notability. A simple Google search (as per below) would have established that the speedy delete request was bogus, and the bogus notice could have been removed, end of story. Instead we have an extended song-and-dance routine that will take 100 times as much effort to arrive at the same outcome - ie the article is kept.--Centauri 02:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't know what happened to Google between now and then, but "New Realism" "Modern Art" seems to give a few thousand hits now. :) --Sketchee 21:29, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. New realism or "nouveau realism" is a reasonably important movement in modern art and our article on modern art links there.Capitalistroadster 15:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.