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 merge to Peter Benjamin Graham. Shereth 21:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Epoch Notation Painting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This has been tagged for notability for a while. I cannot fathom how this is anything but original research: the references do not appear to be about the term itself, or an art movement per se. This is an essay. Even if notability were to be established, this would need to be completely rewritten to become encyclopedic. freshacconcispeaktome 10:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It reads like an essay because I got criticism on the discussion page that it was too cryptic. I have used large sections of an essay published in the journals listed below. I have not yet added the in text references because I haven't finished rewriting it. I did not know that the essay writing style was bad. I am quite happy to rewrite it as soon as I get time to review the rules on writing style.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconcispeaktome 10:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It looks like OR to me, and the only possible real source is, er, a couple of incorrectly filed audio recordings in a library in Australia. In any case, I'm not sure that this subject is notable, although I'd be prepared to be proved wrong on that point. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 'That 'library in Australia' is the Australian equivalent of the library of congress! If you feel it is OR then go ahead and verify the sources, but don't condemn this article based on unsubstantiated SPECULATION. All the references listed are legitimate and the material in the article is based on those references. No original research from unpublished sources is included. As far as notability is concerned, if hundreds of articles about porn stars are notable, then a page about a communication system should have no trouble. Philip1966

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Not only ((essay-like)) OR, but WP:COI, since it seems that the great bulk of edits to the article have come from Newepoch (an indefinitely banned account), two anon IP's in Victoria, Australia, and Philip1966, who appears to be the son of the system's originator. __Just plain Bill (talk) 10:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep based on recent edits. It appears the principal editor is doing a decent good-faith job of keeping a bit of encyclopedic detachment from the subject; this article may in fact clean up nicely after all. __Just plain Bill (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah... well most articles are predominantly written by one person on here. I don't see how that is relevant.

My newepoch account was banned because 'it seemed to be the name of an organisation'. I have used it as a web name for 15 years, but I could not be bothered contesting the ban, so I made a new account which sounded more like an individual person. I only tried to comply with the rules, I did not try to disguise my identity. I will contest the ban if it will make you happy, but none of this is relevant. Philip1966

Comment User:Philip1966 would appear to be a sockpuppet of the permanently banned User:Newepoch, now you mention it... AlexTiefling (talk) 10:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You say 'permanently banned' like I am a criminal, but as I said above someone decided they did not like my name. Again this is not relevant.Philip1966

Comment yes, the User:Newepoch account was username blocked, he is allowed and encouraged to create a new account with a name that doesn't violate policy. TravellingCari 14:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I intend to upload some Convenience links to solve the lack of on line reference material for NEA, but I am not superman. Philip1966

• Delete. As far as I can understand the article, it seems to be proposing a sort of Labanotation for painting. The references given appear to be about art generally, and not about this method specifically. If I am grasping the nature of the project, it actually sounds interesting. But it first has to achieve notability elsewhere before it gets an article here. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "It is not recommended to write an article about yourself. If you are notable, someone else will notice you and write the article."

That's from Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guideline. The New Epoch Notation article says the project is being "... continued by his sons Philip... and Euan..." so the self-reference is plainly there.

As noted in the earlier AFD, some of this material would be appropriate as a section of the article on Peter Benjamin Graham.

Comment This is fair criticism. It is easy for me to set up my own website and I am in the process of doing so, however I wanted to put what is already published to the Wikipedia test. I wanted to see how neutral I could be, to see if I have a core of verifiable material to build out from.Philip1966

The article needs major cleanup to become an encyclopedic report of the technique as actually practiced. "Imagine, if you will..." leads on to a dreamscape speculation of what might come to be, but leads me to doubt that such a thing ever actually happened. As it now stands, that description is not exactly encyclopedic stuff. If it was copied from a journal article, credit needs to be given. It will also be useful to point out specific relevant parts of the Kandinsky and Gardner references. __Just plain Bill (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kandinsky's Concerning the Spiritual in Art was published in 1911, and it's subject definitely isn't 1960s Australian art.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kandinsky is referenced because NEA takes its name from a passage in his book Philip1966 (talk) 12:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes it does. And I can do this. I can even illustrate it because these 'dreamscapes' are in fact descriptions of actual events. NEA has been tested in the field over many years. The only trouble is I have very little published material to work with. I am trying very hard not to cross over into 'original research'. Philip1966

Comment I have replaced sections 'The reality of New Epoch Art' and 'NEA Performance' with cited material more suitable for this encyclopedia. Philip1966 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.86.76 (talk) 11:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just inserted more references but need to integrate them into article.Philip1966 (talk) 12:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Peter Benjamin Graham. The article is almost entirely original research. The fact that Kandinsky is listed as a source rings alarm bells from the start. The other sources either don't refer to the notation method directly or are reviews of the work of Graham and his son, or are written by Graham and his son. The only third party source supporting the notability of the subject is Dr Litchman's article in the Journal of the Art Teachers Association of Victoria. If the primary editor, who seems to be conscientious and acting in good faith, can give the specific quotes from the other sources (the third party ones, not the ones written by Peter or Philip Graham) about the notation method I am willing to change my !vote.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What kind of alarm bells? NEA is not the first human creation named in honor of a earlier person's work. I have listed three third party articles totally dedicated to NEA: those by Rebecca Lancashire, Dr. Loy Litchman, Deborah Stone. I intend to rewrite parts of the article to emphasize the content of these articles. The other third part material quite rightly places NEA into the context of Peter Graham's work as a whole. Where is the critical threshold for the number of third party references?Philip1966 (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete General notability has not been established beyond obscure mentions. Do some Googling and you'll soon realise there's nothing there.--Lester 22:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You need to use the right key words. This area suffers from a plethora of names because most of its advocates often worked in isolation. A major key word is Colour Organ. In 1996 I did a full literature review looking for related research and precedents for a painting notation. It took me 6 MONTHS to find a single direct reference but I found hundreds that skimmed around the idea. Since then two parallel examples of visual notation have come to light through exhaustive internet searching. Notability is not determined simply on the number of references in existence, let alone the number of electronic references. Notability is determined in part on a subjects relationship to major intellectual and creative streams that have existed over time. The concept of visual notation is strongly linked to the theoretical writings of the Constructionist movement, including Kandinsky, Klee, Mondrian, and De Stijl, Kinetic Art, Color Music, the early history of Music Visualization. The fact is there is also a consistent thread within theoretical art writing denying the possibility or practicality of a painting notation. Making these links is beyond the scope of this article, let alone Wikipedia because it involves a great deal of original historical research. In the short, the concept was on the radar, but for the wrong reasons. I have a strong argument that these streams of art remained marginalized in the west because of a lack of intellectual property to present in these art forms. This argument is related to the VHS BETA war in the 1980s in which the technically superior technology, Beta lost out because its backers failed to gain the license to distribute a competitive percentage of available back catalogue of movie titles. In short, a medium will 'fail' mass acceptance if it does not have access to existing media content. This issue is in itself notable. The safest approch I can think of is to place a lot this material into a 'further reading' list.Philip1966 (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails verifiability and notability. I participated in the original AFD and was, at the time, ambivalent. Having made a further, detailed attempt to track down additional sources from the now voluminous reference list I am now increasingly convinced that the topic is almost entirely unverifiable. Regardless, given the paucity of information on the topic it is certainly not notable. Several of the references suggest that material is available on the (subscription only) informit, which I happen to have full access to. A thorough search of that database, however, returns no references I can find to New Epoch anything. Debate 木 08:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Peter Benjamin Graham. I am not convinced that the topic is sufficiently notable to warrant a separate article, and it looks like there's a fair momentum to delete, but WP:N does not directly limit the content of articles and there's useful material here that should be saved. Also per WP:Bite, for what that's worth. Debate 木 14:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What do I have to do. Upload the references verbatim onto Wikisource? Photocopy them and MAIL them in? Is their some kind of wiki law that says 'if its not on the internet it does not exist?'. If Wikipedia has an article on the Loch Ness Monster, it can have an article on NEA. I have listed three third party articles totally dedicated to NEA: those by Rebecca Lancashire, Dr. Loy Litchman, Deborah Stone. Two of these are from mainstream media publications. The third is in a minor but verifiable journal that is available in most state libraries through out Australia. Their catalogues are all on line. Given the nature of these sources I would suggest it is probable that notability can be established.Philip1966 (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing that they must be on the Internet. There is, however, a fairly specific claim in the article that some of them are. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that checking the source provided will actually turn up those references. Are you arguing that it's irrelevant whether the articles are where they are claimed to be, or simply that my search skills are inadequate? If it's the latter then I'll willingly concede the point if the references can be found following more specific instructions. Debate 木 11:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK you've got me. I cross referenced my citations with the National Library of Australia's data base, and it gave me the on line sources. In my haste to complete my references I included the links. I shall remove the links. However I maintain that the existence of catalogue references to the INTERACTA journal should indicate it is probable that verifiability can be established. Philip1966 (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2008 (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.