Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar artwork

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Solar artwork

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

Non-notable supposed art movement (described as "a new type of art") that is really just original research and a list of art that the article author is labeling "solar artwork": in other words, not work that is created by artists as "solar artwork" or described by scholars as such. The references are all primary sources. The further reading is unrelated articles and books that happen to be about art that uses solar power. Again, this is attributing a movement to something unaffiliated, after the fact. Google searches come up with generic uses of the terms "solar" and "artwork" (i.e. not specifically this "movement") and how-to books on using solar power. Again, not what this article is claiming other than in the most general sense. No relevant hits in google scholar, and zero hits in google news. Fails WP:GNG. freshacconci (✉) 01:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. freshacconci (✉) 01:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are no WP:RS — this is WP:OR. Theredproject (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even I find the tag "solar artwork" cheesy, but the fact is that it has been around long enough to be a thing. Information Arts by Stephen Wilson has four pages on it (pp 246-250), for example. I also see the term in numerous google book searches. Normally I agree with the esteemed above editors, but not today. The article does contain OR and needs a serious trim.104.163.159.237 (talk) 01:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added about a dozen sources. I'm sad to say it's a popular thing, especially among those who make a connection between sustainability/sustainable cities and solar public artworks. it's all bogus IMHO, but it's very notable.104.163.159.237 (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should be perhaps renamed to List of solar artworks or Solar art.104.163.159.237 (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no evidence that this is a commonly used term that has any discernible meaning. Not listed at http://www.getty.edu/vow/AATHierarchy?find=sound+art&logic=AND&note=&page=1&subjectid=300191091 for example, unlike video art and sound art. Vexations (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Getty index is accurate up to about 1980 or 1990, as it omits Bio art, Automatic art, Robotic art, space art, site-specific art, video mapping, computer art, interventionist art... and graffiti art!! 104.163.159.237 (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Art & Architecture Thesaurus' entry about site-specific work is [1], graffiti art is here, robotics is here, automata here, computer art here. I find the Art & Architecture Thesaurus helpful because it allows to distinguish between terms that are in actual use and neologisms or amalgams. Space art is an almost perfect example of the mess that comes from conflating everything to do with space and art into one term that includes "realism, impressionism, hardware art, sculpture, abstract imagery, even zoological art" (per the article's lead). Vexations (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but the 24 sources in the article that deal with solar art beat your external thesauri (thesauruses?). We go by sources, and there are plenty.104.163.159.237 (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Vexation's analysis, because very few of the artists listed are themselves notable, and because (forgot I already voted!!) the SPA creator Nachozamora also happens to have a massive COI as "Nacho Zamora is the founder and the manager of Solar Artworks, an initiative that promotes the integration of solar power solutions within public art and urban landscape projects. This website is a place of promotion of works of solar art as a clever alternative to the present urban furniture. Solar Artworks represents some of the top international solar designers, and also collaborates with cultural institutions to develop educative workshops combining art, solar power, and environmental awareness for new generations." from [2]. --Theredproject (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAre we really going to delete an article with 24 good sources? I suggest renaming it to Solar art, which more closely matches content. As I said, lots and lots of mentions in books and magazines. It may not satisfy a 1960s definition of fine art, but it does satisfy a contemporary one.104.163.159.237 (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Solar powered artwork would also be ok, and exceedingly accurate.104.163.159.237 (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2018 (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.