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. Davewild (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No evidence of meeting WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS, referenced to three conversations!! Theroadislong (talk) 07:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources to back up any claims of notability. This appears to be describing a Photoshop effect which is not something invented by the artist and should not have an article. freshacconci talktalk 10:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Tortrei Technique uses any digital manipulation software to create various effects, as a painter would with various sized brushes and pallet knives but that is only part of the technique. The Tortrei Technique is the transformation of a digital photograph into a design completely unrelated to the original photograph. Thank you for making me aware that I have not made that clear in the article. This is a new technique, only in use for the last 2 years, just as Tradigital art was when the term was first used in the 1990's. User talk:Hartfree-Bright/talk--Hartfree-Bright (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication how this is different than any other digital effect using any digital software, other than you giving it a name. This, I'm afraid, would fall under a neologism as there does not appear to be any third-party usage of the term. Anything produced by this technique would fall under digital art. Wikipedia is not the place to establish the notability of a word. freshacconci talktalk 13:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:NEO, the term seems to have been invented by Amanda Hartfree-Bright. Google returns just 4 pages (apart from WP) - one Amanda's at Surrey Open Studios, two at Distinctive Art, and one at Yasni. SO, fails Verifiability. It might become notable in a few years' time, but it isn't yet. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. I am admittedly not an art expert by any stretch of the word. Even so, the term doesn't not seem to have significant coverage from reliable and independent sources under the title of the article. An art expert may have a reason for why this method is notable that I would be willing to consider but at this point, I don't see any inclusion guidelines being satisfied. OlYeller^Talktome 17:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap and 01Yeller21 Thank you both your comments have been constructive and I can understand your points of view.

Freshacconci; You say that "anything produced by this technique would fall under digital art" I have not suggested that it is not digital art I am saying it is a digital art technique requiring skill and knowledge to use and is not simply the activation of preset software effects. Tortrei Technique uses the various processing facilities of manipulation software as tools for producing art in a specific manner in the same way as a conventional artist uses brushes and palette knives to produce images using the wet on wet or dry brush technique, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hartfree-Bright (talk • contribs) 18:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC) Whoops! Sorry I forgot to sign the last comment. --Hartfree-Bright (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that it didn't take skill or that it was just an activation of an effect. I've worked with Photoshop for around 15 years so I know what it takes. However, I don't see how this is anything other than manipulation of software like any other. But the main issue is not the ease or difficulty of the process but rather whether the term is being used in reliable sources. This doesn't seem to be the case. freshacconci talktalk 00:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my original prod nomination, the author should read WP:GNG before adding her creations into Wikipedia. Secret ^account 05:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because the topic seems ultra-narrow (so narrow that the only practitioner had to write the article about themselves). Nothing evil here, just lack of notability (to me at least). --Smokefoot (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:OR --Odie5533 (talk) 08:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NEOCurb Chain (talk) 12:05, 21 October 2011 (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.