Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omnidirectional painting

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. (X! · talk) · @239 · 04:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Omnidirectional painting

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

This is a non-notable technique by one artist. There are no sources and google searches reveal zero hits, other than wikipedia and mirrors. Note that the article on the artist is also up for deletion. freshacconci talktalk 03:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 03:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my talk page exchange with the author, after they removed a merge tag I had placed on the entry. Not notable; essentially branding for a single artist. Hairhorn (talk) 03:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Note that the article on the artist is also up for deletion," says Freshacconci ---who seems to be partly responsible for the proposed artist deletion if I'm reading the article history right. Please see the discussion about deleting the artist Terry Ward. Keep.

Cramyourspam (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)cramyourspam[reply]

Yes, I !voted "delete" on Terry Ward and listed it at list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions to generate further discussion. What, exactly, is your point: that you're !voting "keep" on this article because I !voted "delete" on the other one? I think you'll find the closing administrator will need a more convincing argument if you're hoping to keep this article. freshacconci talktalk 13:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a concept of only one artist and has only one reference. It is essentially the same info as on the artist page, including the same images. Clubmarx (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a neologism that so far has few mentions in reliable sources. --CliffC (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable neologism. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'KEEP Clearly Hairhorn and Freshacconi have axes to grind. Sheesh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cramyourspam (talk • contribs) 02:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find making personal attacks in an AfD (and on talk pages) is futile and counter-productive. This isn't about you. Or me, for that matter. Hairhorn (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-encyclopedic, nn, theoretical art movement...Modernist (talk) 04:33, 10 August 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.