Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lineillism

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. Nakon 05:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lineillism

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims in this article, comparing this guy to the impressionists, but I can't find any sources on "Lineillism" that seem to be authoritative on art. There seem to be a couple of bits in local newspapers, but I don't think that's enough to establish a new artistic movement-or enough notability for an article. Geogene (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – There was this review of the show on a local radio station. But two reviews of a show by local media is not enough to pass WP:NARTIST. The claim would have to be that "Lineillism" is significant, and that isn't shown. ¶ The story about vision impairment and vertical lines was interesting. It might be possible to merge that somewhere, but I don't know exactly where. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That radio piece isn't independent. I Googled the name of the person that did the piece for the station, and it pulled up the Twitter feed of a publicist based in Cincinnati that represents artists. The same publicist's name appears at the end of announcement for this artist in the Cincinnati Enquirer. So, how much of the rest of what little coverage we do find is astroturf? Geogene (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I question the qualifications of any critic on here to question a media outlet's worth. Just because they are not in New York or Los Angeles doesn't make them not credible. Much like establishing a copyright, Jim Hall followed standard procedures: he staged an extensive show in a legitimate gallery that was covered by the media and looked at by critics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.183.49 (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If a media outlet is being paid to write about something, it's worth nothing. Geogene (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that glowing review that's the centerpiece of the article? Look at this: [1]. Art critic? No--corporate PR professional. This article is toast. Geogene (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 13:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local radio coverage is insufficient to establish notability. The excerpted review is not independent, and not from a reliable source (indeed, as noted above, it's a corporate PR piece). At this point, AFD will grind onward, but I would honestly have considered this a candidate for deletion as G11 unambiguous promotion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2015 (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.