540:, so there is scope for an article by this name—provided someone can come up with some reliable sources, that is. Look for sources that also talk about the history of arts criticism, and topics such as the rise of the internet as a carrier of cultural commentary should provide some meat for the article. Can I suggest to the closing admin that if the article is deleted that it is
457:(book). City University London has a Master of Arts course in "Arts Criticism", and I doubt its the only one. I've really only scratched the surface of the evidence of notability, it's a deep sea because this is a long-term, wide-spread, international phenomena with a commonly-used name. Did any of the
191:
not exist? Does it not have a history? Is it not a section in the book stores? Are there not notable critics we can mention? So please: don't delete. Expand and improve. If you have any suggestions as to how to reference it and develop it then I will follow them to make this article survive.
167:
problem with the article is that it's unreferenced. I find that a really hard criticism to address but NOT because I don't feel the article should stand but because the statements I've made in the article are so broad and uncontroversial that I really am at a loss as to where to begin to get
372:
to "visual art criticism" in the first place and skip the painful middle stages where a lot of people will disagree with you? But in the mean time, with the scopes currently given to each article, they are both notable and describe different scopes so should not be merged or redirected.
367:
to include all arts and see whether that scope can find consensus. Once you do so, I'd be curious whether an article called "visual art criticism" has to be created, given that all other specific artform criticism movements have their own articles. Perhaps you'd be better off to rename
362:
has been written this way. Inevitably you'll also be able to find people using
English differently, perhaps at places like Norwegian universities ;). An AfD seems a strange place to try to rescope an article that isn't even the one under discussion. You could try editing the article
564:. It needs major expansion and work, some tweaks to the terminology and topics, and maybe a name change at some point, but it is no longer unreferenced and I believe there is now enough here for a reasonable stub article. Brevity in of itself should be no reason to delete. Thanks,
183:
improve on those statements. But I don't see how you can delete an article (the subject of which is a supplement in many newspapers and a section in general interest magazines) because it is deemed
315:
Knowledge (XXG) article titles should reflect common use of terms in the real world. In the real world, "art criticism" is used for visual arts and "arts criticism" is used for all arts.
499:- why are you not opposed to a redirect when there is ample evidence that the two articles are about substantially different things? What makes 'redirect' a good option here?
414:
is broader encompassing the spectrum of artistic endeavors (dance, film, architecture etc) which you often find at newspaper sites if you click on "arts and entertainment". --
131:
446:
441:
Have been
Googling around, and there seems to be plenty of evidence to support the "Arts criticism" as the name for a notable social phenomenon. As a sample:
358:"Art criticism" is often used to mean visual arts only. Googling the term, most of the usages on the first page are visual-arts only. Presumably this is why
271:
only discussed criticism of visual arts. The various types of "arts criticism" should be tied together in some way. I'm not sure whether this article is it.
544:
in order for it to be worked on at the editor's own leisure? Alternatively, the editor could try incorporating the information as a subsection of
335:
seems to confirm that the term "art criticism" isn't just restricted to the visual arts and so I think that the two terms are interchangeable.
56:
is kind of silly, and the authors may want to put some real consideration into merging the two articles together into something cohesive.
227:
98:
93:
17:
102:
398:
are bothersome/confusing. Whether my article name is changed or the extant one, I don't mind. However, as others have noted there
85:
184:
221:
548:, until such time as it is large enough to be spun-off into its own article. There'd be space for his navbox there too.
454:
587:
179:
is. I've merely brought those two things together and they are such that I dt know how to give a meaningful reference.
36:
450:
216:
per Reyk. I'm embarrassed I missed the existing good article under slightly different spelling. This article is
267:
Note that this article is discussing overall criticism of all arts (including music, architecture, etc), whereas
442:
586:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
390:- I am entirely happy to see some rejigging of article titles because it is certainly the case that the titles
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
487:
150:
572:
556:
520:
491:
470:
423:
382:
350:
324:
307:
280:
259:
232:
201:
154:
67:
466:
378:
320:
276:
516:
419:
197:
89:
541:
506:
62:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
142:
462:
374:
316:
272:
217:
163:
Hello. I'm the page creator, so no surprise that I'm defending. Judging by my talk page
537:
512:
415:
391:
343:
300:
252:
193:
81:
73:
49:
139:
533:
502:
479:
403:
395:
369:
364:
359:
289:
268:
241:
53:
511:
the effect of a redirect here is to redirect a broad article into a specific one. --
482:, but would like this AFD to run its course as a previous redirecting was reverted.
187:
as was suggested in the history of the article and a reason for deletion here. Does
57:
119:
483:
146:
565:
549:
407:
336:
293:
245:
176:
332:
545:
411:
172:
406:
article is about what most newspapers I have looked at refer to as
292:
article should be expanded to include all the other sorts of art.
580:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
410:(painting, sculpture, things you see in a gallery). Whereas
461:
Redirect voters actually look for evidence of notability?
126:
115:
111:
107:
244:, which is an established and legitimate article.
48:, default to keep. Arguing the semantics between
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
590:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
447:Justin Davidson on arts criticism
532:. There is a difference between
501:You might just as well redirect
478:: Not opposed to redirecting to
451:Arts Criticism Wanes Nationally
168:references from (continues...)
1:
443:The Future of Arts Criticism
607:
573:19:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
557:18:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
521:16:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
492:10:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
424:00:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
383:00:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
68:20:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
583:Please do not modify it.
471:23:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
402:a distinction here. The
351:23:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
325:23:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
308:23:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
281:23:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
260:22:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
233:22:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
202:21:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
155:21:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
175:are. And we know what
455:Modern Arts Criticism
185:wp:Original research
510:
171:(...)We know what
44:The result was
507:Washington County
500:
143:original research
598:
585:
570:
554:
341:
298:
250:
230:
224:
129:
123:
105:
34:
606:
605:
601:
600:
599:
597:
596:
595:
594:
588:deletion review
581:
566:
550:
347:
337:
304:
294:
256:
246:
228:
222:
125:
96:
80:
77:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
604:
602:
593:
592:
576:
575:
559:
538:Arts criticism
525:
524:
523:
473:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
392:arts criticism
345:
302:
288:- I think the
262:
254:
235:
207:
206:
205:
204:
189:arts criticism
138:Appears to be
136:
135:
82:Arts criticism
76:
74:Arts criticism
71:
50:Arts criticism
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
603:
591:
589:
584:
578:
577:
574:
571:
569:
563:
560:
558:
555:
553:
547:
543:
539:
535:
534:Art criticism
531:
530:
526:
522:
518:
514:
508:
504:
503:Washington DC
498:
495:
494:
493:
489:
485:
481:
480:art criticism
477:
474:
472:
468:
464:
460:
456:
452:
448:
444:
440:
437:
425:
421:
417:
413:
409:
405:
404:art criticism
401:
397:
396:art criticism
393:
389:
386:
385:
384:
380:
376:
371:
370:art criticism
366:
365:art criticism
361:
360:art criticism
357:
354:
353:
352:
349:
348:
342:
340:
334:
331:
328:
327:
326:
322:
318:
314:
311:
310:
309:
306:
305:
299:
297:
291:
290:Art criticism
287:
284:
283:
282:
278:
274:
270:
269:Art criticism
266:
263:
261:
258:
257:
251:
249:
243:
242:Art criticism
239:
236:
234:
231:
225:
219:
215:
212:
211:Strong delete
209:
208:
203:
199:
195:
190:
186:
182:
178:
174:
170:
169:
166:
162:
159:
158:
157:
156:
152:
148:
144:
141:
133:
128:
121:
117:
113:
109:
104:
100:
95:
91:
87:
83:
79:
78:
75:
72:
70:
69:
66:
65:
61:
60:
55:
54:Art criticism
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
582:
579:
567:
561:
551:
528:
527:
496:
475:
458:
438:
399:
387:
355:
344:
338:
329:
312:
301:
295:
285:
264:
253:
247:
237:
213:
210:
188:
180:
164:
160:
140:unreferenced
137:
63:
58:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
161:Strong keep
463:Ryan Paddy
408:visual art
375:Ryan Paddy
317:Ryan Paddy
273:Ryan Paddy
513:bodnotbod
416:bodnotbod
333:This page
194:bodnotbod
177:criticism
546:The arts
542:userfied
412:the arts
238:Redirect
214:Redirect
173:the arts
132:View log
529:Comment
497:Comment
476:Comment
388:Comment
356:Comment
330:Comment
313:Comment
286:Comment
265:Comment
220:essay.
165:Stifles
99:protect
94:history
509:since,
484:Stifle
459:Delete
147:Stifle
127:delete
103:delete
568:Steve
552:Steve
223:LotLE
218:WP:OR
130:) – (
120:views
112:watch
108:links
16:<
562:Keep
536:and
517:talk
488:talk
467:talk
439:Keep
420:talk
379:talk
339:Reyk
321:talk
296:Reyk
277:talk
248:Reyk
229:talk
198:talk
181:Sure
151:talk
116:logs
90:talk
86:edit
59:Sher
52:and
505:to
346:YO!
303:YO!
255:YO!
240:to
64:eth
519:)
490:)
469:)
453:,
449:,
445:,
422:)
400:is
394:v
381:)
323:)
279:)
200:)
192:--
153:)
145:.
118:|
114:|
110:|
106:|
101:|
97:|
92:|
88:|
515:(
486:(
465:(
418:(
377:(
319:(
275:(
226:Ă—
196:(
149:(
134:)
124:(
122:)
84:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.