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.
Notability issues, since 2012 little evidence in the sourcing that this became an established term, apart from a single Atlantic blog post (from 2012), none of the sourcing meets
WP:RS and all originate in 2012. Essentially a single commentator (Bridle) coined this term and tried to push it as an art movement when in actuality it was an extension of internet art commonly referred to as "post-internet."
Acousmana (
talk)
11:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)reply
the v2L book: New Aesthetic New Anxieties is described as "the result of a five day Book Sprint organized by Michelle Kasprzak and led by Adam Hyde at V2_ from June 17–21, 2012." so essentially a self-published work. The second book, The New Aesthetic and Art: Constellations of the Postdigital, doesn't appear to be cited anywhere in the article itself and seems to be about the broader topic of post-digital and new media art, so not clear it refers specifically to Bridle's 2012 conception. having looked more closely, it does follow NA per Bridle, but reads like a manifesto, again, I would question notability of publication.
Acousmana (
talk)
13:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)reply
yes I know what it is, consider it cynical usage of the term, but do you actually believe they were paid an advance on this? If solely published on academic merit, was it peer reviewed? Quite likely they weren't paid, and they didn't pay anything to have it "published", it's a free book, so something akin to open access research. Can we establish notability for this publication?
Acousmana (
talk)
14:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Acousmana, there is nothing in our notability policy that say that for a subject to be considered notable, the sources themselves also need to be notable. Not just the publisher or the author, but the piece of work itself (the article, book). In this case, the publisher is in fact notable. Not that that is required. Your demand to demonstrate that the authors have received an advance is unreasonable and not supported by any policy.
Vexations (
talk)
15:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)reply
it was a redirect, i
did that, has since been
reverted, which is fair enough if editor wishes to improve a stand-alone entry, a merge with 'new aesthetic' would perhaps help in this respect. Ideally, all of this content should be in the article
Internet art, rather than having separate entries, the overlap is significant, and from a historical perspective, merging all is warranted.
Acousmana (
talk)
16:27, 25 January 2021 (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.
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.
Notability issues, since 2012 little evidence in the sourcing that this became an established term, apart from a single Atlantic blog post (from 2012), none of the sourcing meets
WP:RS and all originate in 2012. Essentially a single commentator (Bridle) coined this term and tried to push it as an art movement when in actuality it was an extension of internet art commonly referred to as "post-internet."
Acousmana (
talk)
11:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)reply
the v2L book: New Aesthetic New Anxieties is described as "the result of a five day Book Sprint organized by Michelle Kasprzak and led by Adam Hyde at V2_ from June 17–21, 2012." so essentially a self-published work. The second book, The New Aesthetic and Art: Constellations of the Postdigital, doesn't appear to be cited anywhere in the article itself and seems to be about the broader topic of post-digital and new media art, so not clear it refers specifically to Bridle's 2012 conception. having looked more closely, it does follow NA per Bridle, but reads like a manifesto, again, I would question notability of publication.
Acousmana (
talk)
13:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)reply
yes I know what it is, consider it cynical usage of the term, but do you actually believe they were paid an advance on this? If solely published on academic merit, was it peer reviewed? Quite likely they weren't paid, and they didn't pay anything to have it "published", it's a free book, so something akin to open access research. Can we establish notability for this publication?
Acousmana (
talk)
14:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Acousmana, there is nothing in our notability policy that say that for a subject to be considered notable, the sources themselves also need to be notable. Not just the publisher or the author, but the piece of work itself (the article, book). In this case, the publisher is in fact notable. Not that that is required. Your demand to demonstrate that the authors have received an advance is unreasonable and not supported by any policy.
Vexations (
talk)
15:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)reply
it was a redirect, i
did that, has since been
reverted, which is fair enough if editor wishes to improve a stand-alone entry, a merge with 'new aesthetic' would perhaps help in this respect. Ideally, all of this content should be in the article
Internet art, rather than having separate entries, the overlap is significant, and from a historical perspective, merging all is warranted.
Acousmana (
talk)
16:27, 25 January 2021 (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.