Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of timed artistic contests

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. Considering WP:NOTAVOTE, the arguments for deletion are far stronger than those in favor of retaining the page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of timed artistic contests

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

Unnotable list of timed "artistic" contests that is a misnominer - may items listed do not rate artistic value, only require output; further, most of the list are unnotable knock offs of NaNoWriMo that really do not need their own articles, even after the redlink ones were cleared out. The rest, appear to be various copies of each other as well, such as the three 48 hour film challenges. Prod removed with note of "deprod; I think this at least deserves an afd" -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, (without the redlinks). Collectarian, not that I want to get into a debate about the nature of art, but your comment about the word 'artistic' in the title seems a little niggling. Art produced quickly is still art; the emphasis may be on output, but it's on creative output. But can you suggest a better title? Or is your argument that the sourced articles currently included on the list do not merit being grouped together under any title? And if you feel that any of the list items do not deserve their own articles, surely the solution would be to AFD them, not the list? -- Vary | (Talk) 01:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Art does not necessarily indicate artistic. I'm well aware that art produced is still art, I paint and write myself. However, the purposes of most of the contests listed are not contests about artistic endeavors but simply throwing out something within a time frame that is a book/song/etc by any definition. I do not feel that the list topic itself is notable and I do not feel it falls within WP:SAL. Whether any individual entries are notable is another issue and another discussion. The list is too narrow, too subjectively named, and generally not notable. There are not that many timed contests and, technically, any contest could be considered timed as they all have time limits (though obviously, the use of timed here is having a set start/finish). And are any of them really contests when many have no prizes or other reward beyond "okay you did it" and there are no actual declared winners. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I disagree with your assessment of the word artistic; if it's art, it's artistic. Saying something is 'artistic' doesn't necessarily say anything about the work's quality. There are currently fifteen items in the list which all fit its scope perfectly well and have a clear and obvious link, so I don't see how the list can be described as too narrow. Most of your concerns seem to be more related to the list's naming than it's existence; would substituting 'event' or similar for 'contest', or 'creative' for 'artistic' be helpful? -- Vary | (Talk) 01:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't really agree with the nom's take on art, but the individual entries don't have anything to do with each other. Unless the relationship between the entries has encyclopedic significance I don't see how an article can be built out of the connection. This would be appropriate for a category but not a list. Them From Space 01:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think the nom is talking about art as much as they are talking about these contests. I personally think that if time is the constraint then there is no question of something being artistic, but that's neither here nor there. This list, as Themfromspace says correctly, in my opinion, is better adapted as a category since there is a distinct lack of cohesion here. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite as an article on the topic of timed artistic contests, if good sources can be found. It's clear to me this is a genuine thing, not just a random grouping of unrelated events.Borock (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can kind of understand the motivation for creating the list, but in practice these things just don't have much to do with each other. Propaniac (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled by this one; all of the items on the list are events or competitions where participants are encouraged to produce an unusually high amount of creative work in an unusually short period of time. That's the scope of the list. What more do they need to have in common? -- Vary | (Talk) 22:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Within this scope, many of the events are very different from each other and I don't see the value of collecting them under one canopy like this. For example, I don't think a user interested in National Novel Writing Month is also likely to be interested in the 48 Hour Film Project, because it's a completely different sort of challenge, not just in terms of the medium but in terms of the whole task. Simply defining a scope is not sufficient justification for the value of a list of topics within that scope. Propaniac (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that the title might not be the best, but I think at least some of these competitions have a lot in common. Indeed, they are based on each other to a large extent--the Comic writing one led to the 24 Hour Plays which led to the 48 Hour Film Project which led to 48HOURS, etc. Admittedly, I'm biased--I created the list out of the "List of timed video contests" or somesuch when people kept adding other timed artistic contests to that page. I thought that was the best solution at the time. Definitely the version of the article with the NaNoWriMo's all over it seemed like a bad idea, and it's not clear to me where there is a full list of these events. -- Shadowfax37 (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless we come up with something better. If we're going to do it as categories, then maybe multiple categories would be better (one for each artform). TimNelson (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I came here specifically looking for information on the exact same topic and was glad to see it kept here. Bugtank (talk) 01:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 10:46, 28 September 2009 (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.