Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compressionism


 * 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 of the debate was DELETE. -Splash talk 00:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Compressionism
Non-notable vanity neologism invented by the page author. No evidence that this concept has caught on; Google has plenty of hits for "Compressionism" but they don't seem to have anything to do with the article. Melchoir 20:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete a Google search for '"Andrew Lambert" poet' shows no evidence that such a person exists. --djrobgordon 20:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for giving reasons for proposed deletion of Compressionism. A couple of points: (1)The poem 'The Compressionist' (3 sonnets in iambic tetrameters) was submitted to all British copyright libraries in 1988. It can be found, for example, in the catalogue of the British Library. (2) The terms 'Compressionist' and 'Compressionism' have recently become more common. Since my poem, the terms have most often been used with reference to complicated techniques in the film industry. In the last few weeks Amazon has been offering a novel with the word 'Compressionism' in the title. I would not be at all offended by a deletion but I think that there is a genuine need for a term in aesthetics or literary criticism to describe a standpoint between the extremes of impressionism and expressionism. I also think the numerous and varied uses of the terms demonstrate a need for definitions on Wikipedia. User:ANDREW LAMBERT 5 March, 2006
 * Thanks for chiming in, Andrew. I agree that Wikipedia should explore subtle variations of concepts; on the other hand, you may be interested in the policy Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Can you find reliable sources that discuss the concept of compressionism? If not, it will be impossible to write an article here that adheres to the policies of No original research and Verifiability, and the page should be deleted. Melchoir 02:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. RasputinAXP   c  [[Image:Gadsden_flag.svg|25px]] 02:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Andrew Lambert Thank you for your helpful comments, Melchoir.
 * Important articles by Michael Billington in The Guardian on Compressionism in modern drama can be found by searching for 'COMPRESSIONISM MICHAEL BILLINGTON'. "The new compressionism can also leave too much unsaid" (16.4.05). "In an age of dramatic compressionism one wishes that Shepard would get on with it" (6.7.01). "Compressionism is a perfectly valid dramatic form as the work of Beckett and Pinter proves"(9.4.05). "Laurence Kitchin in his fascinating book 'Drama in the Sixties' pins down a moment when compressionism suddenly became all the rage. He defines a compressionist play as 'one in which the characters are insulated from society in such a way as to encourage a maximum conflict of attitudes'. Kitchin also traces the development of compressionism through the plays of Sartre, Beckett and Ionesco and shows how it influenced other forms such as painting through Francis Bacon's portraits..." (9.4.05).
 * The key book in this respect is Laurence Kitchin: Drama in the Sixties. 11:24 5 March, 2006
 * User:Andrew Lambert 'Drama in the Sixties' was published by Faber and Faber, London, in 1966.I do not have the book to hand but it may well be that Kitchin (not I, as I thought!) first defined Compressionism. In that case should the article be seen by an expert on C20 drama before deletion? By the way, I would be happy to post a copy of my poem for purposes of verification. 11:39 5 March, 2006
 * Um... Billington seems to be talking about a meaning of "compressionism" separate from yours. In order to incorporate his and Kitchin's ideas, we'd have to scrap the article anyway. Melchoir 21:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough! User: Andrew Lambert 08:05, 6 March 2006


 * 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.