- 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 no consensus. /Keep, either way it isn't being deleted. There are issues with the article but they are articles which can be dealt with via editing and possibly merging, rather than deleting. TravellingCari 01:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cyberformance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
I'm not going to call Neologism on this one, despite all the sources being self references to Second Life culture... however not every word has a topic associated with it that can be considered encyclopedic. There's no acedemic view on "Cyberformances" and more importantly there is little to say on the matter that makes it any different from an extremely sad (POV) form of Real Performance. Jimmi Hugh (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not all the references are to Second Life by any means. I don't use SL myself for cyberformance, i work in free software environments such as chat applications and the purpose built cyberformance software UpStage. You can't have read the article very closely to think that it's all about SL, it isn't the case at all. And there are academic views: I've just completed my own Masters thesis at Queensland Universityof Technology, entitled "Adventures in Cyberformance: experiments at the interface of theatre and the internet" and in that work i reference numerous other contemporary scholars who are working in the wider field of networked performance. User:Frock —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- I didn't say that the article was all about Second Life. You can't have read my nomination very well, especially if you're not going to make a point related to the AfD and posted only in an attempt to belittle me. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a professor and curator of New Media, I'd like to weigh in on the matter on a number of points. Although I feel there needs to be entries on both "Cyberformance" and "Virtual Performance Art" (The first being a bit more formal in regards to medium, and the other being more closely tied to the gallery tradition as exemplified by Abramovic and Acconci), Jimmi Hugh is is on very shaky ground in his refutation of the entry. One, while the entry has (I believe) two references to Second Life, it mentions _none_ of the contemporary work being done by the Mattes, Second Front, Stephanie Rothenberg, Joseph DeLappe, or others. The entry lists a lot of very sound references to historical works that I would deem very worthy of "cyberformance".
Secondly, as an _Academic_ writer on this subject (with at least 7 published missives and essays on Virtual Performance, which I deem a form of Cyberformance) I refute there not being an academic point of view on this subject, including current theses on the subject. If Jimmi might say that there is not a large body of essays dealing with this particular definition, I may only say that this is due to the fact that historians have yet to begin fully fleshing out the discourse of 80's New Media, and not that Cyberformance is a neologism.
I wholeheartedly support this entry, and respectfully differ strongly in opinion from Mr. Hugh.
Patrick Lichty, Interactive Arts & Media, Columbia College Chicago —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patlichty (talk • contribs) 01:06, 22 September 2008
- Very marginal keep--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 02:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent point! However, I still feel, despite your persuasive argument that it isn't quite worthy of inclusion. I just don't see, with such minimal sources, how it can become an article. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 23:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete: In fact, it is a neologism, and it is an ephemeral one at that. Educationalists are quick to coin, slow to persuade, and masses of verbiage remain in their own smallish worlds without once making it to wide discourse. I have seen one person eager to use "asynchronous communication" to refer to chat rooms! When a subject is so new that no one can even agree upon what they're discussing, much less how to refer to it, the result is original research. Encyclopedia are conservative by nature. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a researcher and practitioner of various types of technology-mediated performance, I refute the assertions that this entry has no academic merit. I am currently working on a PhD that directly draws on the premise of "cyberformance". I daresay there are hundreds, if not thousands of active cyberformance projects currently active around the world. Some of the most recent examples would be the 080808 festival using Upstage, the Burning Life festival, Barbara Campbell's "1001 Nights", SLShakespeare's performances in Second Life and others. Second Life may well be implicated in the current offerings of cyberformance but it is by no means the only site where cyberformance is occurring. Kim Flintoff BA, Grad Dip Ed, MEd. (PhD Candidate - Queensland University of Technology; Sessional Lecturer/Tutor in Drama Education and Contemporary Performance - Edith Cowan University) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.169.10 (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with everything you've said... but I have to ask, so what? - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Weak delete. I see a few hits on Google scholar, but it seems that the protologism hasn't caught on much. Unless someone can improve the article with information from reliable sources, I have to say delete. As it's written now, the article strikes me as original research. VG ☎ 23:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article. This is indeed an emerging field and the concept of cyberformance draws on aspects of other research and practice in the fields of networked performance using digital technologies and performance using digital media. The use of the UpStage platform is quite different to operating in Second Life. I have drawn on work in this area and Jamieson's recent MA study in my own PhD work and in a chapter in a forthcoming textbook. Sue Davis, PhD Candidate, Queensland University of Technology & Lecturer CQUniversity, Australia. Sue Davis —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. So far I've found and added to the article two reliable (scholarly) sources (in "Linux Journal" and "IEEE Multimedia"). The article needs a bit more cleaning up, but the topic is definitely more than a mere neologism and is perfectly notable. --Zeborah (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wow, thanks for noting that, i'm sure despite my nomination specifically saying I wasn't calling it a neologism that people might still have not got that this word doesn't come under that category. However, for some reason you're comment is still tagged as "Keep", perhaps you accidentally forgot that the list of reasons to delete an article is far wider than that? Also, none of the sources you added make claims, or present any reason to think the topic is notable. Of course, I didn't claim it wasn't notable either, in case you "forgot" what you "read" in the nomination. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although you agreed that it's not a neologism, another !voter did call it a neologism and another called it a protologism; I was disagreeing with them. As to your original points, there are in fact academic sources for the term (which I've added to the article), some of which do discuss ways in which cyberformance differs from traditional performance (see the third paragraph of the section Features of cyberformance). Is this sufficient to address your concerns? If not, what would be? --Zeborah (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Some serious academic study and sudden global recognition overnight...? I'm saying that this topic isn't encyclopedic, and that won't change in the short term. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How do you define "serious academic study"? It currently cites three articles by three sets of authors in three academic journals on three aspects of the topic -- that covers the "multiple reliable sources" criteria of verifiability. "Global recognition"? New Zealand, UK, Canada, Finland... "Encyclopedic"? I don't know what you mean by this unless you mean the amount of information. Certainly there's not as much to write about yet as there is about, say, elephants; but there's enough to write a well-sourced short article. If that's not what you mean, can you point to the policy you're referring to? --Zeborah (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Some serious academic study and sudden global recognition overnight...? I'm saying that this topic isn't encyclopedic, and that won't change in the short term. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although you agreed that it's not a neologism, another !voter did call it a neologism and another called it a protologism; I was disagreeing with them. As to your original points, there are in fact academic sources for the term (which I've added to the article), some of which do discuss ways in which cyberformance differs from traditional performance (see the third paragraph of the section Features of cyberformance). Is this sufficient to address your concerns? If not, what would be? --Zeborah (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wow, thanks for noting that, i'm sure despite my nomination specifically saying I wasn't calling it a neologism that people might still have not got that this word doesn't come under that category. However, for some reason you're comment is still tagged as "Keep", perhaps you accidentally forgot that the list of reasons to delete an article is far wider than that? Also, none of the sources you added make claims, or present any reason to think the topic is notable. Of course, I didn't claim it wasn't notable either, in case you "forgot" what you "read" in the nomination. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the person who created the original post, I want to clarify why I posted it. I read and write widely in the field of new media arts, and I wanted Wikipedia to reflect the distinction Patrick Lichty draws attention to above, between other kinds of virtual or quasi-virtual Performance Art and Cyberformance. It was not intended as an exhaustive post, but as a first pass that would benefit from other people's additions. Certainly there are other groups and individuals now working who could and should be added to the article to help flesh it out. I admit I am somewhat new to posting on Wikipedia, and I apologize if I have inadvertently contravened any Wikipedia conventions, although I try to carefully follow the guidelines. However, Jimmi Hugh's initial comment that the sources all reference Second Life is just plain wrong and implies a rather careless initial reading. In addition, to make a flippant passing judgment that this kind of work is "extremely sad" seems to me not in keeping with Wikipedia standards of discourse, especially when it is not backed up with an informed analysis of the current state of performance practice.--ValliNagy 20:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep -- If I can find it on GNews, Scholar, and on other searches, it's something that can verified. BARELY. This is about as close to the edge of notability as you can get. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 20:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Those papers can't seem to agree what cyberformance means. Is it restricted to the use of avatars, or is a podcast a cyberformance? VG ☎ 21:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Artists and thus, those dealing with them often shun categories and labels, my hunch is as the field of digital artists, new media artists expand etc. a major art institution will help define the accepted terminology. -- Banjeboi 00:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Defining and possibly re-naming as well as cleaning up content to avoid OR concerns are WP:Problems that we fix through regular editing. This certainly seems to be a logical and notable emerging field in performance art. If there are editors interested in the subject it would be helpful to focus on particular art schools, museums, institutions, etc that have presented shows on the matter and seem how they are presented to the public and how they are reviewed in the arts and mainstream media. -- Banjeboi 23:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment about source coverage. I've read the Linux Journal article and the IEEE MultiMedia article. Both are about a piece of software called UpStage, rather than the phenomenon of cyberformance, which is mentioned only in the introduction. Based on these two sources it seems like UpStage deserves a Wikipedia article, not cyberformance. The current article copies most of its contents (i.e. the timeline) from http://www.creative-catalyst.com/cyberformance/timeline.html, which is personal website so it's not a realiables source, and there are some copyvio issues as well since creative-catalyst is not GFDL. VG ☎ 13:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've read the article in Digital Creativity as well. That one is indeed focusing more on the overall picture of cyberformance, rather than a piece of software. I'm changing my !vote to weak keep. VG ☎ 14:20, 25 September 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.