Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-Blended Impressionism

Non-Blended Impressionism

Non-Blended Impressionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article about a term without widespread use outside of a single person, who apparently was also the editor that created the article. Fails basic notability; no book hits, nothing. A bunch of external links were removed as they were borderline spam. There is simply nothing to indicate that this is a known or accepted variant of impressionism. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Delete I found only one independent source, a small Australian newspaper article on the man, not the concept [1], and no evidence in reliable sources that this neologism is in wide use. Without reliable sources, this topic fails notability guidelines WP:GNG and WP:NEO, suggesting that the article should be deleted. --Mark viking (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable neologism. As this is the invention of Roy McPherson (per THIS), a redirect to his biography would be perfectly appropriate, were there such a biography. Carrite (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per Carrite. Johnbod (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
• Delete This article is written by Roy Maloy and makes false claims. All references to "unblended Impressionism" are made by "Roy Maloy" in small community newspaper and no such genre exists.
• This article is in fact supported by major Australian newspaper articles

It was also written by myself, not Roy McPherson. I have studied art, specialising in impressionism for a number of years and this article draws on the evolution of impressionism and several other modern art styles including pop art and well known artists such as Banksy to create this article.The references deleted from this article in fact supported this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nissa13 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Delete The articles DO NOT support anything in accordance Wikipedia policies as they are references ONLY made by Roy McPherson and no other person within the mentioned articles . If we are going to list qualifications here, I have a degree in fine art and have been an exhibiting artist for 20 years and know that this page is not only baldy written but completely false and misleading. It is done in a vain effort to increase the value of Roy Maloys AKA, Roy McPhersons AKA, Timothy Roy McPhersons artwork and is deceitful. It also confuses historical facts about Art genres and art history. I suggest you go back to school. Artist76 01:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Delete This article was clearly created to give a false impression as to the validity of the term "non-blended impressionism"

There is no reliable source offered, and the reference originally used has been misrepresented. The newspaper snippet did not attribute the style as one crested by the individual, rather it quoted the individual's own description of his work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.85.180 (talk) 05:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Delete The image displayed is not that of a genre "Non-Blended Impressionism" but that of the Artist "Roy McPherson" Roy Maloy the person who made the false claims of pioneering this fake genre. Artist76 01:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)