Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK Video Art: The Early Years

There's nothing there. It seems to serve as nothing but a vehicle for linking to the external site. I almost listed this on Cleanup, but it would really require someone to actually WRITE an article, since nothing here is worth cleaning up. Rick K 23:03, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Looking at the article's history, it looks like it's been repeatedly recreated despite attempts to redirect it to other locations. Rick K 23:37, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: It looks like we've walked into a conversation, not encyclopedic at all. This is in addition to the problem with the name and the fact that the content might belong (that which is intelligible) to another article. Geogre 00:30, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I was going to say merge/redirect to video art, but it looks like that already happened. Since it keeps getting recreated, is it a speedy candidate? — Gwalla | Talk 03:07, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hey! First look at my 'anonymous' (but authoritative) recent addition (29/8/04) in the 'votes for deletion' page you have on Peter Weibel. Then, re this reference to European and specifically UK video art must be included otherwise you are going to have a typically American-biased entry! If an informative global overview can't be produced at least leave in invaluable links!! Looks like you've left a link to the Experimental TV Centre, NY, alone for example, now why is that?

- No change of vote. Geogre 13:28, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well George (Geogre?) you are just being stubborn. C'mon, Mr Anonymous has a very valid point. You can't do that All-American-Boy and sneer it off! That just isn't very intelligent , this is meant to be a serious (if not intellectual) contribution to WORLD knowledge.

- Well, Anonymous, please read my vote, and don't make assumptions about the nationality or ethnicity of those who vote against this fragmentary and POV account. Geogre 01:12, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I can't see a reason for a separate article under this title, but, Mr. Anonymous, please feel more than free to add appropriate UK-related material to Video art, which is probably too U.S.-centric. -- Jmabel 04:46, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

OK, this discussion is getting cyclic to say the least! I will indeed add more on European work to the Video Art main page if there's no other world expert out there to offer it (?). However, I would have thought your editors could have easily transferred the GIST of the 'stub' statement to the main page with no trouble, particularly as Jmabel appears to agree it is currently 'US-centric'. And Geogre, there is certainly no assumption of 'ethnicity' in my comments but some remarks on this page surely read as American bias? My point, as above, is that this UK chronology reference link MUST remain if you are including direct links to 2 or 3 U.S. video info organisations and, I note, a German database! -- 'Mr Anonymous' Aug 30, 2004

Got to agree with Geogre. Article just kind of starts in the middle and doesn't really say anything other than there was video art made in the UK. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It says early video art was not only the work of US (or US based) artists, but that there was simultaneous interest and use of the medium across the western world. Until this appeared the main Video Art page didn't "really say anything" about anything other than typical claims, BY OMISSION, of American supremacy in the field. This addition contributes some historical FACT. Keep it.