Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Impressionism

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 no consensus. Sandstein 20:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Impressionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

As a previous prod stated, there was no Canadian Impressionism, just impressionists from Canada. The term was coined recently in conjunction with a book and there is no further coverage of the topic. There are sources that talk of impressionism and Canada but note that this is different. None of those sources claim that a movement ever existed, mainly because it didn't. It's a neologism used as an umbrella term for a number of Canadian artists working in the impressionist style. What little that is here in this article can be found elsewhere. There is only one source given and no other supporting sources exist, other than a few brief mentions in connection with the book. freshacconci (✉) 01:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. freshacconci (✉) 01:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. freshacconci (✉) 01:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment would it be of any value to rename it Impressionism in Canada? I'm personally not familiar enough with general coverage articles to say.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think Canadian Impressionism is better, as some artists produced works outside the country, such as James Wilson Morrice. Curiocurio (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article has some good supporting references. The fact that the term is a neologism is no cause for concern. There was no term "Renaissance" during the Renaissance or "Middle Ages" during the Middle Ages. The fact that authorities are using the phrase Canadian Impressionism (the National Gallery, Apollo magazine) should be sufficient. The History section does need some expansion though. Curiocurio (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article has solid sources, looks like a good start and can always be improved. The topic definitely deserves its own page in my opinion, so I don't see why we'd delete it.Auberginandjuice (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2020 (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.