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 and salt. Daniel Bryant 11:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funism[edit]

Funism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Appears to be one artist's description of his philosophy of art. While the artist may or may not be notable, the style doesn't need its own article. NawlinWiki 19:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - until/unless Norm Magnusson satisfies WP:BIO and then the information can be merged with his entry. ◄Zahakiel►

Comment - I've perused other contemporary artist's entries, determined that Magnusson most definitely satisfies WP:BIO criteria and added an entry Norm Magnusson. I continue to think that funism deserves its own entry but will fold it into the artist's page if that's the consensus here. Andreammoss 17:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speed delete and salt. This was alreadt deleted twice. Someone keeps recreating it. Freshacconci 19:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete unencyclopedic "manifesto", possibly a copyvio as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete , simple advertisement Alf^Photoman 20:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Speedy delete - not surprised that this article has been deleted twice before. Third time luck ;-) HagenUK 21:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I read the artist's response to this request. While he might qualify for an article, Funism certainly does not (maybe on the artist's page). I stick with Delete/Speedy delete. HagenUK 08:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I read the dealer's reply as well, and I still stick with my Delete/Speedy delete. HagenUK 18:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy if its a deleted recreation--ZayZayEM 03:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm an art historian doing my thesis on Art Movements Post-Post-Modernism and this is certainly legit. I asked the artist to provide his bio, here are the highlights:

There's only been one book written about me and my art, it's a mini-monograph written by Jim Beasley and it sold out on Amazon.com. (http://artist-info.com/cgi-bin/search/user_search.cgi?action=display_artist&ID=21402)

The book's acquisition by Cranbrook University's Art school was noted online here: http://www.cranbrookart.edu/library/newacq/nwbk1102.htm

I'm listed in the Museum of Modern Art's (MOMA) research library, the DADABASE: http://library.moma.org/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=Norm+Magnusson&Search_Code=GKEY%5E&SL=None&PID=m2-QHBEX3PzsgA2FDSWY7doXJgz7&SEQ=20070316095921&CNT=25&HIST=1

And the Princeton online guide to American Artists http://www.princetonol.com/groups/iad/lessons/middle/america.htm Other stuff:

I get over a thousand hits on Google, largely due to my extensive exhibition history. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22norm+magnusson%22&btnG=Search) Google cites sources such as Artnet and Rhizome; numerous art galleries; museums such as New York's MOMA, The Springfield Museum of Art, The Aldrich Contemporary Art Museum, The Shore Institute of Contemporary Art, The Pember Museum; publications such as The New York Times, The New Yorker, Orion Magazine, The American Museum of Natural History's magazine The Sciences, France's Courier Cauchois and Paris Normandie, Germany's Der Vogel, Christchurch New Zealand's main newspaper The Press, Wildlife Art News, The Week, scads of local press; numerous blogs and online ink such as The Huffington Post; organizations such as The National Coalition Against Censorship and WNYC, The Franklin Furnace and Art in Context; television and documentary appearances both in the U.S. and abroad; and last but not least all the cow parade hits online.

My art is in the permanent collections of museums such as MOMA, The Springfield Art Museum, The Anchorage Museum of History and Art and others; corporate collections such as AmSouth Bank and Simmons U.S.A.; and private collections such as Kenneth Cole, Andy and Kate Spade and Laurence Rockefeller (dec.)

Upcoming exhibitions include "On this site stood," which is this year's Main Street Sculpture Project for The Aldrich Contemporary Art Museum http://www.aldrichart.org/exhibitions/future.php, “Insight/Onsite : Site Specific Sculpture at SunyUlster," and "America's Seven Cardinal Virtues," a solo exhibition of paintings at the Van Brunt Gallery http://www.vanbruntgallery.com/magnusson.html.

I was honored a few years back with a Pollock-Krasner foundation grant in recognition of my work and am currently under consideration for a Guggenheim Fellowship, a NYFA grant, and an Art in the public realm grant.Andreammoss 19:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. So the artist should perhaps have an article if this is all true. But "Funism" does not appear to be notable, nor is the information provided encylcopedic in tone. A wikipedia article should not read as a manifesto and should not be original research. If this is based on your thesis, it may violate the latter and you would need to adopt a more neutral tone of writing. Freshacconci 20:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Art movements are certainly notable.

Comment. I don't think the issue is whether art movements are notable, but whether this one is notable. Freshacconci 20:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I checked each of the links he sent prior to posting them here. I certainly feel this artist deserves his own page but right now am more interested in the funism entry. Should I create a page on the artist? Should his one of his dealers create this page? Should he? Thank you for your polite discussion, I appreciate it. Andreammoss 21:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually, his dealers definitely should not create the page. That would be a conflict of interest. If it's something that interests you, I would suggest you create it. If all the references and links are accurate (and I'm only saying "if" because I haven't looked at any of them myself), then the artist would appear to be notable in his own right. A very brief mention of "funism" could be included. This has happened before when an artist who was notable had an article on his/her art movement merged with the main artist page (see Guity Novin for an example of this). Freshacconci 21:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've shortened the entry by omitting the lengthy full manifesto. The summary remains. Also, I am working on a brief entry for the artist and will post that soon. Andreammoss 07:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep

In 1983 I opened Bridgewater Fine Arts, one of the early galleries in the East Village. Sometime around 1988 a young artist, Norm Magnusson, came to me and explained that he and a number of friends were developing an art movement he described as "Fun-ism." The idea, creating art that was both relevant, and fun. Along the lines of Dada-ism, it poked fun at established orders, while making comment on environmental, social and political issues. My partner and I followed his work for a number of years and upon his return from a hiatus spent living and working in France, we decided he was finally fully developed and ready to show. In 1994, Bridgewater/Lustberg, now in Soho, began a seven year relationship, resulting in five one person exhibitions and inclusion in innumerable group exhibitions, always with an emphasis on "fun" and relevant commentary. Throughout his travels and showing in France, New Zealand, and throughout the United States, the term Fun-ism has been applied and re-asserted in both Museum text, catalogues, reviews and conversation. Not one of the Museums or collectors that have acquired his work, including MOMA, The Springfield Museum, The Anchorage Art Museum, Kate Spade or Laurence Rockefeller, once disputed the validity of his claim and use of the expression that his art was "Fun-ism" itself.

• Delete Is this a joke?--Sefringle 04:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and salt under WP:CSD#G4. --DeLarge 11:41, 22 March 2007 (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.