Deletion of Pixelism Art Movement

Comment: if it's not  (and looking at the references supplied, it sails close tot he wind) then it still fails , what kind of art movement fails to generate verifiable coverage in secondary sources?  A non-notable one
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:N)

Comment: An attempt to create an art movement using Wikipedia to establish notability, therefore delete per . The three sources are technical books about pixels, but have no connection to an art movement. Google only provides generic connections: i.e. artists who work with pixels or pixelized effects. A scholar may want to look into this as an overall trend which may in the future result in a Wiki article on pixels as a medium, but as an actual "movement" it fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:V)

Comment: Again, this is all speculative (as per  at best. The Hainley article only mentions "pixelism" as a general description, not a reference to an actual movement. The Frayling and Serota endorsements are unsourced (the last link is actually just the curatorial statement which lists the same Frayling and Serota reference without source). The Chang and ''Asimov's Science Fiction'' references again fall under speculation, with no evidence of an actual movement. Unfortunately, this still fails per  and 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:NOR||WP:NEO)