Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plastic in 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. The topic of the article is almost certainly notable. Coverage of specific artists within the article is outside the scope of AFD. Mr.Z-man 04:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic in art

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

Article mainly seems to be a WP:COATRACK for an artist with dubious notability. Needs completely rewriting at the very least. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 16:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Per "own work" uploads at Commons (with OTRS tickets) of the images removed from this article as spam, webmeister1 is Tyler Turkle, and the version of this article before he began editing it made no mention of him. Searching for the term "Tyler Turkle plastometry" reveals exactly one RS connection of the term with his name that is not directly tracable to this article, from the "Sonoma County Gazette", which is hardly a major source for art criticism (the article is mainly about his day job, not his art). The version before his edits was also extremely short and unsourced, and not even remotely an encyclopedic treatment of the subject. Revent^talk 17:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete as hoax, ban the Wikipedian globally as chronic hoax-producer. JSTOR shows 0 mentions. Google Scholar shows only a single self-made reference inserted into World-Cat. I think we, and not only us, have been conned, starting in 2008. I suggest that impeccable art historian sourcing be consulted. The artist is not mentioned by the Metropolitan Museum's art history series encyclopedic review addressing the subject of Plastic in Arts: http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/mome/hd_mome.htm . --Mareklug ^talk 17:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC) PS. http://www.moma.org/search?query=Tyler+Turkle I suggest searching for "Tyler Turtle" on any art museum or art history encyclopedia page, and finding anything but absence of results. --Mareklug ^talk 17:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having been started in 2002, this is one of the earliest articles on Wikipedia. A brief search confirms that the topic is notable as examples of sources include:

If some particular artist has hijacked the article then, per WP:BABY, this is not a reason to delete the whole page as ordinary editing per our editing policy will suffice. Andrew D. (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rolled back to the state before the 1st edit by Mr. Turkle. Nothing that follows appears trustable or relevant or well-sourced. I suggest someone with interest in the subject area take the above-provided Metropolitan Museum overview of plastics in arts link, and the reference sources mentioned there, to expand this stub into a decent wikipedia analogue, in this space. --Mareklug ^talk 22:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the topic of using plastic in artwork is an obvious art topic. If these two artists should be mentioned in the article is a different subject that could be taken up on the talk page. -- GreenC 21:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Just found Plastic arts; Not sure if these are duplicates of each other or not. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Plastic" in that article is being used in a different sense, like plasticity. -- GreenC 14:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has this deletion already been decided without discussion, because Mareklug has already removed much of the page...I did not even have the opportunity to reedit. I thought that this was to be open for discussion. Regardless, much to do has come about because of a misunderstanding and an editing error on my part. I have explained in detail in the request for deletion of Tyler Turkle above - please take the time to review it. Webmeister1 is not Tyler Turkle contrary to what one editor has jumped to conclusions about. This appears to be an outright global harassment over a misunderstanding.

Coatrack

There was mention that the Plastic in Art page that I (Webmeister1) edited was a “Coatrack”. Until this day I did not know what “Coatrack” was, but I do now. I understand now that the way I edited could be construed as that. I will work to provide a better product in the future. Thank you for understanding that not all Wikipedia Editors can be as proficient as you, we are learning. I wish to work with you in amicably working toward restoring the pages that have been so unjustly removed.

Plastic in art is certainly an art topic in many forms and should not be deleted. I will work to place the art that Tyler Turkle has done onto this page in cooperation within Wikipedia guidelines. Mr. Turkle’s work with plastic is unique. It is a painstaking many hours process of the flowing of multiple layers of plastic. It is this style of art that makes his technique most unique. American Contemporary Artists must be recognized. Please do not allow this page or other Contemporary American Artists pages to be removed due to someones misinterpretation of an editing error.

Thank you for this consideration…Webmeister1 (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion/exclusion of Tyler Turkel should be handled on the talk page. Start an RfC, get consensus. If there is concern about COI make a case at the COI noticeboard using evidence. Meanwhile, please don't damage Wikipedia by deleting articles. -- GreenC 14:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All of the information on the Plastic in Art page related to Tyler Turkle and his work with plastic was removed before any consensus was made and it was done in knee jerk fashion all due to a misunderstanding of an editing error I made in Wiki Commons as I mentioned above. This is not keeping with Wikipedia guidelines and I do feel that the Plastic in Art page must be undeleted until talk and discussion about what to do is completed. Webmeister1 (talk) 05:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Plastic in art page has not been deleted. The page is still there. It is a blue link, not a red link. The purpose of this discussion is to decide if it should remain a blue link, or become a red link. That's it. Any internal content issues, such as the removal of Tyler Turkle from the article, has nothing to do with this AfD. Please take that discussion up on the talk page of the article. Use Wikipedia's dispute resolution tools such as WP:RFC. AfD is not the correct procedure for resolving a dispute over content issues. -- GreenC 13:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I fail to see the importance of the topic. Yes, plastic is used in art. Obviously its use coincides with the twentieth century. Does any source claim a significance for this? A redirect to New materials in 20th-century art would be called for unless sources can be found attributing importance this. Bus stop (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the Grove Encyclopedia of Materials and Techniques in Art for a good example of an encyclopedic article on the topic. See also the Metropolitan Museum of Art for an example of institutional interest. Andrew D. (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are right, those are two good sources. Bus stop (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 09:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a notable topic, however it needs some sources such as the ones linked by Andrew D. Frmorrison (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2014 (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.