Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finalism (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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finalism (art)

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

Since its creation I've made a good effort at improving the article and sourcing it, but unfortunately all of the sources I've found (mainly by using this google search) have been primary sources, press releases, or retailers selling a book written by the founder of the movement. This movement does not seem to meet the general notability guideline. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Writer has linked ancient painted sculpture research from Harvard University and further additional information from out side sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AFirestone (talk • contribs) 10:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references in the article do not give any independent sources for this concept. (Several of the "references" do not even mention "finalism".) The article has been written by the single-purpose account AFirestone, who may well have a conflict of interest. Searching I have found plenty of sources for the philosophical belief "finalism", but very little for the school of art of that name, and those that I have found have been almost entirely sources that are quite obviously not reliable or not independent of the subject or both. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Research on ancient painted sculpture is independently done by Harvard University also the philosophical belief of "finalism" that final causes determines events. Collectively inspires 27 other artists http://www.sculpturepainted.com the copyright protects the expression of an idea (Legal Fact) which in turn makes it reliable, independent, verifiable fact. This has also been documented by a a book ISBN 978-1-877572-93-7 (Legal Fact). Conflict of interest is inferring corruption or financial benefit due to posting information which has not occurred. Wikipeadia may need to reassess http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuckism and other pages if my information is to be deleted. AFirestone —Preceding unsigned comment added by AFirestone (talk • contribs) 10:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources need to be reliable, secondary sources; your website is not sufficient, and does not demonstrate notability; I'm not sure what the relevance of Harvard University studying ancient painted sculptures is in relation to a much more modern concept of "finalism". With regards to the mention of "Stuckism", please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your statement notability please look at http://www.sculpturepainted.com/news.html and http://www.sculpturepainted.com/news1.html with numerous articles and exhibitions that we have done. AFirestone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.180.102 (talk) 11:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:N for what indicates notability on wikipedia. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable articles have been done please see above news links. To earlier statement the study of ancient painted sculpture is one of the pillars of the art movement that inspires the 27 artists. Information is within the General notability guideline's. AFirestone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.180.102 (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the "This article has multiple issues" so I can improve on the page. AFirestone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.180.102 (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and • Gene93k who have outlined clear reasons for deletion. This fails WP:N and is orignal research. freshacconci talktalk 18:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree with you and can see that Finalism does fit in the WP:N. I think it fits well into the occasional exceptions. AFirestone —Preceding unsigned comment added by AFirestone (talk • contribs) 06:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

orignal research please see http://www.sculpturepainted.com/writings.html If I could get past these issues I could spend the time improving the page. AFirestone — AFirestone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You keep posting that link and all it illustrates is how this is original research. Your own website is not a source, it is not independent of you. Please read WP:RS. freshacconci talktalk 13:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT EVER MAN, DELETE IT IF YOU WANT TO. AFirestone —Preceding unsigned comment added by AFirestone (talk • contribs) 23:45, 25 August 2010 (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.