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. Davewild (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Art[edit]

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

Eye-wateringly trivial unsourced essay. WP:NOTDICT. TheLongTone (talk) 11:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, trivial, not notable stub. Kierzek (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research (of a kind) that merely describes something, vaguely. The term "wall art" exists to a certain extent but it is not a concept in and of itself. Most flat art is displayed on walls. I don't believe an article is required to explain that. freshacconci talk to me 18:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definetely an original research. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frivolous comment I'm tempted to create a piece to hang at the very top of a wall and call it Cornice Art. Any takers?TheLongTone (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article seems like an essay full of original research, and the title cannot be accurately redirect anyways due to it being rather ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2015 (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.