Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transhumanist Art

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 keep -- Samir धर्म 10:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transhumanist Art

Ephemeral neologism, unencyclopedic, original research, unsourced claims, blah, blah, blah. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Article is heavily rearched with more than 50 references, including academic journals, which are in the process of being edited into the article. I ask you to refrain from inappropriate comments until the article is complete. Since we just started entering data on this article, it is highly suspect that you would immediately write such biased and unprofessional commentary.

Avanteguard 08-09-2006

1. Article was only in existence for 10 minutes before it was slated for deletion. It was in the process of being developed by the original author; I suggest the author be given some time to finish writing the article and providing the intended citations. I suggest that koavf's actions are the result of some inherent bias against the subject of transhumanism in general. --NJHeathen 00:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Userfy as an essay. Doesn't even say what transhumanist art is. -- Koffieyahoo 01:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Wait! That was added but Justin (above) removed the text before he submitted it to deletion. This is entirely unfair. Now we have to rewrite it from scratch. Avantguarde

• Comment Any art movement driven by a manifesto is doomed to be stale. Creativity does not come from manifestos. --Xrblsnggt 02:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • [[Response to Erroneous Comment and thank you]] The manifesto did not drive the art. But we will certainly address this because it is an important comment. Avantguarde

*Keep or Userfy The article as it currently is (as of when this message is signed) is pretty poor, however it does appear to be onto something substantial. New users are typically unused to using userspace to polish up an article before posting, but it's a safe thing to do. If the article has been improved by the end of this AfD, then keep. Else userfy to allow it to be properly worked upon. LinaMishima 04:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Keep Whilst the text of the article still does not read too well, it certainly has strong references. As it has references from respected organisations, WP:VERIFY and WP:NOTABLE are passed. All it needs now is for the text to be improved. LinaMishima 17:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    • additional although it must be noted that several of the references appear to be for transhuman rather than the associated art movement. LinaMishima 17:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Give us a few days to work on it please. This is our first article and your help is enormously appreciated. We want it to be a really great article. Avantguarde

* Delete per WP:RS, WP:NOR. No matter how new an article is, the standards are the same, and sources must be in from the start. Its one source is what, a podcast? This should not preclude recreation as a serious article. Sandstein 17:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC) Changed to keep, infra.

• • Sources were Edited out Unknowingly We did have sources from the beginning, but during the first few minutes of inputting the article, Justin deleted the text. This was biased and unprofessional. We didn't knkow about it until later, and immediately worked to restructure the araticle. But, you are absolutely correct that the sources ought to be in from the beginning. I am trying to fix that now. Regarding podcasts, one source is a podcast by R.U. Sirius who is well-known author. Podcasts are valuable current-day methods for interviewing. But if you are unaware of cyberculture and lastest technologies then it would seem strange. If you like, I can defend podcasts are a viable source for journalism and research. Avantguarde
    • check the history I can't see any references in the history. I do, however, see references there now, so I shall change my vote. Podcasts are probably not intrinsically good source material, but their associated blog and transcript could well be if by a respected author. LinaMishima 17:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
      • R.U. Sirius (Podcast/blog) author Thank you for the suggestion. Please allow me to explain. R.U. Sirius is a respected author, having published a number of books: The Revolution: Quotations from Revolution Party Chairman Pub. Feral House (2000) [[1]] and 21st Century Revolutionary: R.U. Sirius 1984-1998 [[2]]; Shattered Lives: Portraits From America's Drug War by Mikki Norris, Chris Conrad, Virginia Resner, and R.U. Sirius [[3]]; Design for Dying by Timothy Leary and R. U. Sirius [[4]]; and Mondo 2000: A User's Guide to the New Edge : Cyberpunk, Virtual Reality, Wetware, Designer Aphrodisiacs, Artificial Life, Techno-Erotic Paganism, by Rudy Rucker, R. U. Sirius, and Queen Mu Pub. Perennial, (1st ed edition, November 1992) [[5]]. Avantguarde 00:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Now keep. Still a very confusing and poorly layouted article, but it's got some real sources now, so this seems to exist, at least as a slogan. Sandstein 20:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Layout I will work on the layout today to bring it up to standards. I am a bit confused as to how to develop the contents section and some other structural formatting issues.

• Keep. This article does need some work, but its references are substantial and the content. 14:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Adding Information We need to review other articles on art genres and movements to bring this up to top standards. 72.177.10.39 14:54, 17 August 2006 (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.