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 DeleteTravellingCarithe Busy Bee 03:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, new, art form (see edit history). ukexpat (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. I nearly went for a speedy request, but thought maybe I was just being harsh. Think I was right the first time Ged UK (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That was my initial thought, but it doesn't quite fit into any of the speedy categories as far as I can see. – ukexpat (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no claim of notability. sources are very weak --T-rex 23:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be another NN one-man art movement. Johnbod (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep - So these three censors decide what is worthy to be known and what is not? Do you have any particular reason - excepting conceit - to be in such a hurry to normalize the Wikipedia content? If you don't know and never heard about vp.art in the past, you have the vanity to decide that it's not worthy to be known by others. I think that above all you illustrate the weakness of Wikipedia, which is run by a handful of know-it-all, have-it-seen and have-been-there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanaa06 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the article stands. Article states that vp.art has nothing to do with soundpainting but, uses soundpainting books as references? I can't find anything in google for vp.art - logical extension would be voice painting I think (and that also doesn't come up with anything). Got to go with non-notable and non-verifiable. I believe vp.art has come-up for discussion elsewhere (editors' assistance or the helpdesk) I think if people want to find more on wiki about it. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Jasynnash2 didn't even read the references in the article. The article states that it has nothing to do with soundpainting as used in another Wikipedia article, while*Delete the books and other references used in the article are talking about experiments combing sound and painting. I sincerely wonder why this small group of censors are in such a hurry to delete an article which informs about a perhaps marginal form of art, but one that is new and has a real potential. Is it vanity or opinion streamlining? A significant fact: NONE of you is even interested in art! At least you don't think it worthwhile mentioning in your profile, where you list yet dozens of rather uninteresting hobbies. --Sanaa06 (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, I'm attempting to Assume Good Faith but, accusing people of censorship just because they don't agree with you is a bit.... to assume that people aren't interested in art simply because we don't agree with you is a mistake (just because someone doesn't have a mention of something in their "profile" doesn't mean they aren't interested or that they lack knowledge in that area. You need to review the policies and guidelines around notability and verifiability and discuss the reasons you feel the article deserves inclusion based on those facts. Simply accusing those people that disagree with you of censorship doesn't help the article, yourself, or wikipedia in any way, shape, or form. I've also changed your second "keep" to "comment" for clarification purposes. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You're missing the point. You just said yourself that the references in the article are about something else, not the article itself. Ged UK (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply If you'd taken the time to check the references of the article, you would have noticed that they are not about something else, but about artists and scientists who are all working in this field. Unfortunately you are neither experts, nor are you even interested in the matter of art. You are only interested in petty censorship against unconventional information.--Sanaa06 (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - emerging art form that has not garnered coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability and no reliable sources backing-up the assertions made in this article. By way of explanation, Wikipedia is a "tertiary" source of information. That is to say, there a "primary sources" - things that are out there in the real world (works of art, in this case), then there are "secondary sources" - writers and academics who write about the primary sources in reliable newspapers, books or academic journals. Then there are tertiary sources like Wikipedia which draw on the reliable secondary sources. If there are no reliable sources then we cannot have an article on the subject. None of the links in this article fulfil that criterion, and a google search doesn't find any, either. This is not pettiness or censorship - it's one of the core policies of Wikipedia. For more information you should read WP:V and WP:RS. AndyJones (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What else than censorship do you practice, Andy, when you decree that the sources given in the article don't fulfil that criterion? So artistic practice and university research aren't any good? This is an emerging form of art, sources are still scarce. The fact is once again, that you aren't interested in the matter, but in the bureaucratic procedure alone. --Sanaa06 (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And again. Not helping the article or the subject. Please discuss the articles merits or lack thereof using the policies and guidelines of wikipedia. And for the record I'm very interested in the subject and art in general. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
reply Then why don't you mention your interest in art in your profile, you mention fireflies, blueberries and white chocolate?
Keep Although sources are scarce, I suggest to keep the article for a couple of weeks, to see if other readers than the restricted circle of 'wiki decision makers' who expressed themselves extensively find any interest in it. The article is neither political, nor offensive in any other way and you can't seriously pretend that it puts Wikipedia's credibility at stake.--Sanaa06 (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Second Keep from article creator, whose only edits have been to the article and here. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now, if that isn't censorship, Johnbod, you delete even my comments, so you deny my (Wikipedia institutional) right to defend my article! And you seem to spend your time following this discussion. Is vp.art so important to you? Instead I would have expected you to reply to my proposition. It's true, I'm new to Wikipedia editing, but I wonder if I'll get used to your understanding of democracy.
It wasn't me who stuck it through, if you look at the history. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Afd#How_to_discuss_an_AfD. You've expressed your "Keep" sentiment earlier in the discussion. And although AFD is not a vote, participants in the discussion are not to express these non-votes more than once. You should prefix your comments with '''comment''' -- Whpq (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, I'm fed up. Delete the article if you want. At least I learned today how Wikipedia opinions are made. I read it not long ago, in a magazine, that the "deleters" of Wikipedia never write their own articles. Now I understand. Hope you had a good time too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanaa06 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS I just wondered how many of the 2.4 million articles in the EN Wikipedia got so many censor comments? Well, you probably think you time has been spent worthwhile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanaa06 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not particularly notable. It actually is a variety of audio art not a movement or medium in its own right. WP:CRYSTAL applies here, I believe. freshacconcispeaktome 00:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The books listed as references have nothing to do with "Vp.art". Essentially, this is original research and a neologism. This isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. If there were specific, third-party references about Vp.art, that would be different. But as it stands, this is a non-notable art form. freshacconcispeaktome 00:46, 13 June 2008 (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.