Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art Bollocks


 * 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 merge to Criticism of postmodernism. Sufficient time has passed to allow interested editors to comment. Most of those who have either argued for or expressed consent for a merger. (non-admin close) Cnilep (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Art Bollocks

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Although the term abounds on the internet, I agree with the tag placed on the article that the actual essay itself does not meet the GNG (not the subject of multiple etc.), and the article is just a short summary of the essay's contents and is not encyclopaedic by definition.  Captain Screebo Parley! 07:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as a non notable neologism/DicDef Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge to Criticism of postmodernism or one of the other "See also"s. A decently referenced para on a fairly common theme trhat we can surely find a use for somewhere. But not as a stand-alone article. Johnbod (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  16:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  17:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)




 * Merge and Redirect I could find a few secondary sources discussing this article, such as and  but none of the sources were both in depth discussions and considered reliable sources per WP:RS. Thus the article seems to fail general notability guidelines, per WP:GNG, at least at the present time. However, the topic is verifiable, and per WP:PRESERVE, it is reasonable to merge a summary into the more general criticism article Criticism of postmodernism. Criticism of postmodernism has its own problems with non-neutrality, but that seems the best target. I recommended redirect, because it seems a reasonable search term. --Mark viking (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw talk 19:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Note From WP:RELIST "Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors. Therefore, in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice. Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation (in addition to the relist template) on why they did not consider the debate sufficient." This rationale for the third relisting is a necessary item please. At present there appears to be a definite, but small, consensus to merge and redirect,which woudl be an acceptable outcome. Fiddle   Faddle  19:33, 19 May 2013 (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.