Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pixologist

:{{la|Pixologist}} ([{{fullurl:Pixologist|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pixologist}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Non-notable, looks made-up and is salted with buzz-word crap. Rob Banzai (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as nonsense or at best a neologism - no worthwhile ghits. andy (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Andy knows how to use BIG words oh boy! "salted with buzz-word crap" actually if you knew how wrong your were you would dirty yourself with your own "crap"

I think you should be put up for a speedy deletion and oh yea... It is clear that you are an elitist pig too and I can smell your "crap" all the way over here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flipskarley (talk • contribs) 23:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to have an engaging conversation with you boys because you have clearly decided (without any formal education on this terminology) that this not worthy of your ignorant position. "nonsense or at best a neologism"

WOW... how wrong you are. Sorry boys you just lack the understanding of this important artistic definition. This is common terminology in the digital arts - especially amoug the well-season artist that have been working in the digital arts for over two decades. Sorry boys you are out of you league. I know this may be a tough pill to shallow but it is true. The two of you have the intellect of a neutron.

• Delete per nominator and andy. I have also warned User:Flipskarley for the above personal attacks. Vquex (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep the purpose of this discussion is to form a consensus based on a dialogue regarding the notability of this article for inclusion or exclusion from Wikipedia, the personal attacks in this discussion are patently irrelevant including the inciteful rationale for deletion. As for pixology a google scholar [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=pixology&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search search] seems to indicate that the subject is at the very least nominally notable however, it seems to be more about photographic development and a software of that name than the current article which indicates somewhat of an overlap with graphic design.^MY♥_INchile 23:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

: I concede the point about personal attacks, and I would agree that the nomination was worded rather undiplomatically. However, these references (and there are only a tiny handful) all appear to be very minor and certainly not enough to create an article that is more than a stub, so my delete !vote stands. Vquex (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

::Not only minor, but mostly references to a company called "pixology" from patents and the like. --Slashme (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

So I guess that "salted with buzz-word crap" is not a personal attack... you boys need to take a good look in the mirror —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flipskarley (talk • contribs) 23:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• No, it's not. It refers to the article, and not to a person. Reyk _YO! 23:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well Reyk-yoyo maybe you are all a bunch of intellectual bozos. You should try to help a newbie rather than setting up so many rules and roadblocks for submission. I am a Digital Artist and one of the very first Users of the technology(over 25 years ago). I have taught at several major Universities including the University of Michan School of Art and Design / and the UofM Film school - The college for creative studies - Cranbrook - The University of Tampa - The International Academy of Design and Technology. I have also worked in some of the Top industrial Design Offices including The General Motoers Design Center and The Chrysler Design Office.

As far as I can tell you are all a bunch of wanna be intellectual snobs and you would rather slice and dice an new guy than help or embrace new ideas that are out of your scope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flipskarley (talk • contribs) 00:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

:Flipskarley, I can assure you that this deletion process is not motivated by a desire to oppress new users. Wikipedia's purpose is to collect and present reliable information, so there are certain requirements an article has to fulfil before we can include it. The Articles for Deletion process is how those requirements are discussed and enforced.

:An important policy is verifiability. This policy states, basically, that a subject needs to be covered by reliable outside sources, for example newspapers, scientific journals, critical reviews and the like. We need to insist on this one because otherwise how would we know if something is notable enough to include, or even if it exists? You say this article is tremendously important and worthy, and that if only we were familiar with it we'd agree with you. Well, prove it by providing outside sources and I'll be convinced.

:I understand you're upset that your article is being dismissed as "crap" and "a neologism". It's true that we regulars at AfD are often more brusque than we should be, and it can irritate and discourage some users. That's something we need to be more careful to avoid.

:If you, as a new user, want assistance there are plenty of places you can ask. WP:HELP is a good place to start, or you can send one of us a message on our talk page. But you surely understand that calling people "bozos" and "snobs" isn't likely to go down well with anyone, even people who otherwise would go out of their way to help a newbie. Regards, Reyk _YO! 00:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Reyk - Thank you for your kind and thoughtful reply. Apparently there are folks associated with wiki who would rather dismiss a new emerging idea rather than trying to understand it. Yes my use of language was abrupt but only after I was characterized as "crap" and "a neologism"... Looser!

Maybe I jumped into the pool too quickly - I would appreciate some help. If you guys care to pull the "Pixologist" for now... then go for it - but I will tell you there are highly (6 figure salaries) professionals within the industry were I worked for 15 years that use this language everyday. Once again I am sorry if my words are "crap"and "a neologism" but really some people need to get off there intellectual high horse and eat a humble pie.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Flipskarley (talk • contribs) 02:24, 1 August 2008

• Not a problem. I'm glad to be able to help. I do think calling your article "crap" was over the top by the original nominator, but the neologism part was justified and isn't meant to be an attack on you. It just means that it's a recently coined word, possibly used widely in a certain subject area- there's nothing wrong with neologisms, it's just that they're often not suitable for this encyclopedia. If your article ends up getting deleted, you can always draft another version on your personal user page. Since user pages aren't in the main article space it won't be brought to AfD- it's a place where you can draft your article in peace before you introduce it into the encyclopedia proper. If you can find enough reliable sources, that is. I'm happy to help you any way I can- send me a message by clicking the YO! in my signature if you have any other questions. Reyk _YO! 03:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Unsourced and badly written article about a non-notable term someone made up to mean digital artist. Edward321 (talk) 04:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The article is currently completely unsourced. I found few Google hits for the word "pixologist", which is not a good sign considering that it is a computer-oriented occupation. While this article is currently listed under the title Pixologist, it might be more appropriate (assuming the article is worthy at all) to list it as Pixology instead (by analogy to other articles). However, it appears that "Pixology plc" is the name of a company, and so Google hits for "pixology" will find hits for the company, not just the art form. I may reconsider if the article gets a significant rewrite during the AfD period. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

:Just to be clear I agree my use of the word "crap" was too strong but it did not warrant the author's venomous personal attacks both here and on his user page, attacks that surprised me for both their offensiveness and persistence. His claims of being an art school teacher and that "highly paid" professionals" use the term are as unsupported as his article. Please don't let him intimidate you into giving his article any more favor than any other WP:MADEUP product. Wikipedia articles require notability and references and at this point neither are in evidence. Rob Banzai (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, strongly: a non notable neologism that seems to have promotional intent, as made obvious by the vague prose and glittering generalities of the article's text. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced essay with no sources (and an extreme WP:PEACOCK problem). AndyJones (talk) 11:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Keep EBSCOhost and ProQuest have zero instances of pixologist. Pixology references, which are abundant, refer to the company. Sorry, but this seems to fail WP:NFT. Jclemens (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

:*Changed vote per Benjiboi's additions. Jclemens (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Move to Pixel artist. Appears to be nothing but original research; a fancy sounding term that someone made up. At best it could be used only in circles so small as to have escaped google's notice. Nonnotable, not even verifiable. Themfromspace (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• I stand by my original statement in regards to the word "pixologist" which the article was originally about but the updated form would be more than acceptable under "pixel artist". Themfromspace (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm currently trying to rewrite this article. Banjeboi 15:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Although Benji is putting some good work in here I think the problem is still in the use of the term 'pixologist' to define the profession or the person doing the work. What's described in the article now is in the domain of digital artists but doesn't support the usage of the terms 'pixologist' or 'pixologgy' as defined in the original article. What's here at best could be rolled into an article on digital media. Rob Banzai (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Agree only on the part about use of the terms pixologist and pixology. I think the article should be moved to pixel artist which presently redirects to pixel art. Banjeboi 19:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Article rewritten. Banjeboi 19:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as long as it moves to Pixel artist. Plenty of content to support this profession even though many are known by different terms, artist, graphic artist, designer, web illustrator, etc. The 5-year juried and international-touring "Into the Pixel" artshow demonstrates that this emerging profession is now hitting the mainstream. That the vast majority of information has not yet saturated "old media" venues isn't surprising as those who do this seem to all be online and new technologies pretty much make a printed book outdated as soon as it's written. Banjeboi 19:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep if renamed, or merge to Pixel Art. Excellent work by Benjiboi: very impressive. But there's still no justification for an article with this name. AndyJones (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I think there is consensus that the name is problematic at best; once it has been used regularly in reliable sources it can be reintroduced. Banjeboi 20:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

:The good quality of Benji's work aside is there any support for the notability of the term "pixel artist?" This strikes me as just another version of "pixologist." I have seen many references to digital artists and in my line of work (advertising) that's the closest we come to making a distinction between a traditional media artist and one that specializes in computer based media. Unless an argument can be made for the notablity of any of these terms beyond "digital artist" we're splitting hairs. Rob Banzai (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

::Yes actually and I think you'll find just like graphic artist was a newish term for some time, this one is now well on the rise. Whereas pixolist doesn't seem to register there are tons of hits (131k) [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22pixel+artist%22&btnG=Google+Search] that certainly seems to suggest the exact phrase is being used even if it's not used equally by all. For instance, online ads looking for "Graphic Artist / Illustrator / Pixel Artist"[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22pixel+artist%22+site%3Acraigslist.org&btnG=Search]. Likewise we don't always have an exact profession match but a hairstylist might not like our term for them --> hairdresser. This is now become a notable subspeciality of design, that it's generally restricted to entertainment, most obviously games, doesn't make it less notable. Banjeboi 21:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Rename to Pixel artist or merge into Pixel art. Excellent work on the rewrite. The article now bears no resemblance to the old version. Reyk _YO! 22:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Esn (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep the paragraphs that talk specifically about pixel artists (such as the first paragraph of the "Background" section), and Rename article to "pixel artist". Merge most of the information which describes pixel art into the pixel art article, while taking care to not lose anything from either article. My rationale is that there's no sense in having two articles with in-depth descriptions of pixel art. So while it would be good to have a short summary of just what exactly "pixel art" is in the "pixel artist" article, all in-depth information should be moved to a single article. This article currently has a lot of information about pixel art that the "pixel art" article does not have, and vice versa, so I would ask whoever does the merge to be careful and make sure that no information falls by the wayside. Oh, and great job. ;) Esn (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Rename to Pixel artist per the excellent rewrite. This article should definitely be kept now, just under a better name. Artichoker[talk] 22:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - With the provision that it be renamed to "pixel artist". For a supposedly-notable computer term you'd think that Google would have more than 424 hits (and wouldn't suggest I meant "mixologist"). In comparison, at 136,000 Ghits, "pixel artist" seems a well-established term. I strongly disagree with the suggestion to rename or merge to pixel art, both this article and that one have plenty of content and deserve seperate articles. -- Atama^chat 22:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

:Comment The trouble, as I see it, is that they're both great articles but they largely cover the same topic. Which is why I propose keeping this article, but merging most of the text that deals with pixel art rather than pixel artists into the appropriate article. As an example, see the difference between the animator and animation articles. Esn (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The additions seem to meet inclusion criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

: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.