Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pixelism Art Movement

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

The result was Delete. Consensus is that Pixelism as an art movement topic does not meet the general notability guidelines. -- Jreferee t/c 01:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pixelism Art Movement

Fun one here. This claims to be an art movement. At first I thought this was an elaborate hoax, but it isn't, as at least one genuine artist does seem to call one of his works a "pixelism" [1]. Other artists may produce work in this style [2], but do not call it pixelism that i can tell. The article gives 3 references, which actually do seem to exist [3] but again do not mention the term "pixelism" as far as I can tell. Then, I can't find anything else confirming this is a genuine art movement... [4] [5]. So until there are sources confirming the claims of this article, I think needs to be deleted for failing WP:V and possibly WP:NOR. --W.marsh 03:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete if it's not WP:NOR (and looking at the references supplied, it sails close tot he wind) then it still fails WP:N, what kind of art movement fails to generate verifiable coverage in secondary sources? A non-notable one. Pete.Hurd 04:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep if some better source can be found, or if it can be explained specifically how the references given support the article. DGG (talk) 07:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep- per DGGJJJ999 08:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An attempt to create an art movement using Wikipedia to establish notability, therefore delete per WP:NOR. The three sources are technical books about pixels, but have no connection to an art movement. Google only provides generic connections: i.e. artists who work with pixels or pixelized effects. A scholar may want to look into this as an overall trend which may in the future result in a Wiki article on pixels as a medium, but as an actual "movement" it fails WP:V. Freshacconci | Talk 13:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —Freshacconci | Talk 13:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is already an article on Pixel art, a term coined in 1982. The article has one source. So, as a medium, there is some validity here, and if the artists listed in Pixelism Art Movement can pass notability tests, perhaps they should be moved there. But as an actual movement, there is no apparent legitimacy or notability. Freshacconci | Talk 13:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pixel art seems to be something totally different, "...art, created through the use of raster graphics software, where images are edited on the pixel level." whereas this "Pixelism Art Movement" uses stuckist-approved paint. The two things seems totally unrelated, other than the same word appears in their title. Pete.Hurd 17:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is this related to Stuckism? I can't find that reference in the article. Freshacconci | Talk 17:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was more of a flippant comment than anything, alluding to the stuckists "Artists who don't paint aren't artists", and the mere fact that the "Pixelism Art Movement" is paint based, whereas the Pixel art make art on the computer. The words "stuckist-approved paint" could be replaced with "honest-to-snot paint", or "actual wet and smelly paint" etc. Pete.Hurd 18:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense. Freshacconci | Talk 18:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Freshacconci, who said it best. It isn't really a movement, and shouldn't be treated as one. The article rather nonsensically states that pixel-based art "arrived spontaneously worldwide". It actually goes back to Dali and has roots even earlier than that. The Pixel art article is a far better treatment of this topic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonnotable. Mukadderat 18:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Modernist 21:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to be a 'movement', nor yet passing the notability test. The exception per notability would be Chuck Close, but his use of pixelated images does not itself constitute a formal art movement. JNW 22:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks media coverage Addhoc 21:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is updated with new references, including acknowledgement of the movement (and witty comments) by Knights of the Realm, Sir Christopher Frayling, Rector of the Royal College of Art, Sir Nicholas Serota of Tate Modern and the Tate Britain. It is also referenced in the Art/Tech Journal InterCommunication and a pop-culture reference in Asimov's Science Fiction. Several international artists added that use the term pixelism. It attracted media attention in the UK around Sept 2001, so it may have escaped the notice of US media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinTshabalala (talk • contribs) 22:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup, has potential. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you think this has potential? Burntsauce 17:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again, this is all speculative (as per WP:CRYSTAL at best. The Hainley article only mentions "pixelism" as a general description, not a reference to an actual movement. The Frayling and Serota endorsements are unsourced (the last link is actually just the curatorial statement which lists the same Frayling and Serota reference without source). The Chang and Asimov's Science Fiction references again fall under speculation, with no evidence of an actual movement. Unfortunately, this still fails per WP:NOR and WP:NEO. Freshacconci | Talk 09:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This has nothing to do with pixel art and is completely based upon original research. Burntsauce 17:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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