Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intense 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intense Impressionism

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

Non-notable art movement; unclear verifiability. Practically every Google hit for intense impressionism leads to Daniel Wall himself, with no indication of a movement. Even as confined to Daniel wall, the topic yields little in the way of coverage in independent reliable sources. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research, non-notable subject. --Drm310 (talk) 05:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can find no evidence that this is a generally recognised artistic movement: as noted, many hits relate to the work of one entirely non-notable user of paint.TheLongTone (talk) 11:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To avoid being skewed by Google, I searched through DuckDuckGo.com, but "intense impressionism" appears to have virtually nothing beyond offers of paintings for sale and social media references that all lead back to Mr Wall. He's certainly been a busy bunny as far as self-publicity goes, but this doesn't equate to notability. RomanSpa (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2014 (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.