Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transhumanist 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.  Sandstein  08:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transhumanist art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

An ill-defined WP:OR essay piece that has been marked as having severe issues with sourcing and notability for several years now. I previously culled a pile of terrible sources (see the talk page), but nobody seems interested in or able to fix the page's issues. It's unclear this constitutes any sort of art movement, genre or style that is its own entity that could be written about; "art by transhumanists" or "art with transhumanists in" likely isn't worthy of any separate article. Before the clearout it read like a publicity piece for Natasha Vita-More; as the talk page notes, quite a lot of the stuff the article went on about at length had no evidence in the wider world of its existence even in third-party unreliable sources, let alone reliable ones. I am willing to be convinced there is a "there" there, but this doesn't do it. David Gerard (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability not established. The strongest source, a Wall Street Journal article, did not seem to be about the topic at all. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable enough, see: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. And it probably read like that because Natasha Vita-More published the Transhumanist Arts Statement in 1981 (and could be said to have started the idea). If anything it could be merged into a section of Transhumanism but I don't think that's necessary. --Fixuture (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first is literally a blog post, the second is a rambling opinion piece, the third fails to mention "transhumanist art" or variations thereof, the fourth mentions "transhuman" as an adjective but not "transhumanist art" or any reasonable variant as a noun, I'll need a translation on the fifth. None of this appears to address the criteria for notability at all - David Gerard (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't call the 2nd a "rambling opinion piece" - not sure what your issue with it is? The third does mention transhumanist art, see: [6]. And the fourth also source also discusses transhumanist art, see: [7]. I can read the 5th source which in well-researched manner discusses the topic - it starts from a historic perspective on how transhumanist art started & developed and then shows a handful of examples, lists some transhumanist interpretations of artworks, transhumanist topics in films and some transhumanist artists. Imo it is the most high quality and lengthy source of the ones I listed which probably aren't all possible refs. Anyway these do address the criteria of notability in that they established it. I agree that the notability isn't as clear as in many other cases but it's enough for an article (and more sources on this topic are to be expected so it makes no sense to delete just to later recreate the article). --Fixuture (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It does not seem to have the level of notability or even consistent meaning needed for a WP article.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The main problem with the article as it currently stands (and I admit there are several problems) is a general lack of content. To put it another way, it's not just a lack of reliable sourcing, it's a lack of content to source. It pretty much just says that transhumanist art is art informed by transhumanism. There's nothing in this article that couldn't be said in an aside on the transhumanism page. If in future someone had more to say on the topic (and with better sources), I would not be averse to a "transhumanist art" page, but as it stands it lacks content and proper sourcing and fails to meet to prove subject's notability. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It seems easy to find sources such as Transhumanist Arts. Andrew D. (talk) 05:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 'Transhumanist art' is a suggested search from google when I type "transh" in the search box, whether logged in to google or not. When one uses google image search, the vast majority of images return (every single one that I've seen so far) have transhumanism as a theme. This tells me that it is a thing, and that it's a coherent thing that's searched for by enough people that google can predict it from "transh". So I'm okay with having some information about it on the site. But it doesn't seem to even remotely deserve its own article.

Right now, it doesn't have a single good source. The WSJ source is about a couple who happened to be both transhumanists and artists who got swindled by Bernie Madoff. The HuffPo article is about transhumanism in general, and barely mentions transhumanist art in passing. The Anders Sandberg source is just the artwork of a notable person who happens to be a transhumanist (it's exactly on point, but as it only established the artwork of one person, and does not do anything to suggest that person is notable because of the artwork, it's synth to use it to support anything but a statement that this particular person creates transhumanist art in his free time). The final source seems good enough, as it talks about transhumanist art in a more or less neutral voice. Except it's a blog. By a non-notable person, who only seems to blog about (drumroll, please)... Transhumanism. And when I flipped my google search back to the "all" filter, I could find no independent, reliable sources. So it might be possible to source this article, but I doubt it. I'd suggest a merge & redirect, but there's already several paragraphs about the subject at transhumanism. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:06, 12 August 2016 (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.