- 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. There is a consensus to Keep this article. But I hope some of the editors here can help with the "clean up". Liz Read! Talk! 07:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Information art
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Information art ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article does not describe a specific topic (announced as "an emerging art form"), but refers to a haphazard collection of very loosely related things that have something to do with information and also something to do with art. A search for material discussing a topic covered by the term did not result in any in-depth treatment of a possibly notable topic. If the term "information art" is used at all, it is used for such disparate things as (1) visually interesting images of information technology hardware, such as microchips, originally not intended as art, but presented as image trouvée; (2) the use of statistical data and similar information as the inspiration for art work; (3) " computer art": art produced using information technology as a tool. Presenting an article on all this as if these are manifestations of an emerging art form is in my opinion WP:SYNTH. -- Lambiam 15:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. -- Lambiam 15:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Joyous! | Talk 20:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Information art may be somewhat nebulously defined, but that's not fatal (or even relevant) to notability. It is broader than the very active area of Climate change art, but at the same time is narrower than Data and information visualization. Accordingly, I don't see an obvious destination to move all the content of this article, so I think it should stand. — RCraig09 ( talk) 21:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Delete: I tried a bit of cleanup in the article, but it is hopelessly SYNTH. If this is a notable subject (if) TNT is needed to give it a fresh start, because this is all (goodfaith) SYNTH. // Timothy :: talk 07:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't find it particularly WP:SYNTHetic, though most of it was written ~15 years ago and relies substantially on publications that are not online and readily verifiable. Though the content is somewhat vague (e.g., compare to Data and information visualization), "there's something here". It appears to be one of many articles that could use TLC rather than TNT. — RCraig09 ( talk) 23:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 21:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I'm in agreement with RCraig, this calls for cleanup rather than deletion. The article may be a mess, but there are entire college-level textbooks written on the subject listed as references. There's no question of notability. Valereee ( talk) 12:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Strike my delete above, my main issue wasn't notability (I believe its notable and distinct), but was thinking TNT for synth. I can accept other editors deciding cleanup is a better option, they can always rm material that doesn't work. // Timothy :: talk 13:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: the article is a mess, however the amount of textbooks leave no doubts regarding the notability of the topic. // MitYehor ( talk) 06:07, 9 March 2023 (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.
- 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. There is a consensus to Keep this article. But I hope some of the editors here can help with the "clean up". Liz Read! Talk! 07:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Information art
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Information art ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article does not describe a specific topic (announced as "an emerging art form"), but refers to a haphazard collection of very loosely related things that have something to do with information and also something to do with art. A search for material discussing a topic covered by the term did not result in any in-depth treatment of a possibly notable topic. If the term "information art" is used at all, it is used for such disparate things as (1) visually interesting images of information technology hardware, such as microchips, originally not intended as art, but presented as image trouvée; (2) the use of statistical data and similar information as the inspiration for art work; (3) " computer art": art produced using information technology as a tool. Presenting an article on all this as if these are manifestations of an emerging art form is in my opinion WP:SYNTH. -- Lambiam 15:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. -- Lambiam 15:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Joyous! | Talk 20:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Information art may be somewhat nebulously defined, but that's not fatal (or even relevant) to notability. It is broader than the very active area of Climate change art, but at the same time is narrower than Data and information visualization. Accordingly, I don't see an obvious destination to move all the content of this article, so I think it should stand. — RCraig09 ( talk) 21:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Delete: I tried a bit of cleanup in the article, but it is hopelessly SYNTH. If this is a notable subject (if) TNT is needed to give it a fresh start, because this is all (goodfaith) SYNTH. // Timothy :: talk 07:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't find it particularly WP:SYNTHetic, though most of it was written ~15 years ago and relies substantially on publications that are not online and readily verifiable. Though the content is somewhat vague (e.g., compare to Data and information visualization), "there's something here". It appears to be one of many articles that could use TLC rather than TNT. — RCraig09 ( talk) 23:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 21:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I'm in agreement with RCraig, this calls for cleanup rather than deletion. The article may be a mess, but there are entire college-level textbooks written on the subject listed as references. There's no question of notability. Valereee ( talk) 12:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Strike my delete above, my main issue wasn't notability (I believe its notable and distinct), but was thinking TNT for synth. I can accept other editors deciding cleanup is a better option, they can always rm material that doesn't work. // Timothy :: talk 13:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: the article is a mess, however the amount of textbooks leave no doubts regarding the notability of the topic. // MitYehor ( talk) 06:07, 9 March 2023 (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.