Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foqueism


 * 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. SushiGeek 02:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Foqueism
Some made up a form of art, Google gives 2 hits, that's not even a neologism. Was tagged for a speedy. Looks like a promotional showcase for the artist, not like a Wikipedia article. feydey 22:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Modular. (Talk.) 23:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete 2 GHits for the word and a grand total of five for the artist, two of which are genealogy pages. That's amazing. It's hard to imagine how any working artist can be that far under the radar. Fan1967 00:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks okay to me. Might be a bit slanted towards the artist, but I understand and can appreciate the concept of hidden images. It is something I have wondered about for years. Nice to see it put into text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.12.110 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep I took an art class one time and ask the professor "did the artist actually intend to paint those images in the clouds?" He said "Don't know, probably not".  So,  now at least there will be a term for this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.169.247 (talk • contribs) 8 April 2006
 * Note - both the above IP addresses resolve to Southwestern Bell Internet Services in Plano, TX. Fan1967 21:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as unverifiable, probable original research. Stifle (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an interesting entry and shoudl be maintained.  Wikipedia is an excellent resource to learn about art, and Foqueism is as legitimate as any form of art to study and learn.  Please keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.219.21 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 8 April 2006
 * Keep I am the lucky owner of a Mark Kiselis painting.  People are always seeing a shape or tree in the modern art.  Before you choose delete, take the time to look at the paintings on his website www.kiselisart.com  He is truly a genius! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.158.180.129 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 8 April 2006
 * Keep Interesting article. Who's to say with 100% certainty that this isn't a burgeoning new genre?  Artists who push us to look at things in a new way are what makes art...well, art.  I'd hate to see it deleted because some people can't "google" this newly coined term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.199.146 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 9 April 2006
 * Keep I am wirting from Vilnius and we know Marckas Kisielius' work and hope to have museum honor with some of his work. We likes the symbolism and continue to support him. Iki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.182.67.130 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 9 April 2006
 * Note Every keep vote above is from an IP with no previous WP edits. Fan1967 04:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I love the insight that appears in each painting...please keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.118.87.192 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 10 April 2006
 * Keep KEEP: Although this appears to be original to the artist, it can be easily updated with other artists who have the same - and then grow. Do not Censor original ideas because then you have ideas known to us in Warzsawa when it was under occupation. Keep this term and watch it grow! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.142.18 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 11 April 2006
 * Comment Please read WP:OR, WP:NEO and WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not the place to float new ideas and new words. Fan1967 14:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * delete  M o e   ε  18:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep If the word Fauvism came up for review with Wikipedia in 1888, it would get nuked in a heartbeat.  It was radical and unfounded...plus certainly would not show up in Google.   Wonder if St. Patrick, the patron saint of excluded people according to Wikipedia, would not have showed  up on Google either but he turned out to be one of the greatest saints.   So,  in America we don't start our prayers with "In the name of the Google, and the Son and Holy Spirit..... Amen !  Many computer tekkies, engineers and accountants cannot see images on canvases because they come by it naturally....that side of their brain simply doesn't compute while other artsy folks can appreciate it.  So,  whether you nuke it or not,  the sun will rise and art will continue.  When computer gurus like Gates and Jobs come up with cool computer terms,  the world accepts it without question but when an artist comes up with a new term,  it is frown upon.  Read John Paul II's letter about Artists in 1999.   Best Wishes ....Mark Kiselis, Creator of Foqueism, a Non Editor of Wiki   April 12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by  66.142.169.247 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment Can you even remotely guess how many people invent words and try to put them here? Kaloogian. Splace. Uterosexual. Omgsplosion. Extravolution. Norgs. Those are just some of the ones from the last month. Every single one of the authors is convinced that someday it will catch on, and we should list it here just in case it does. That's not the way it works. Fan1967 00:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. DVD+ R/W 23:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * KeepArchitect...? Must be related to Nimrod...Don't those guys take 5 years to get out of college ? Maybe that's why he's a "Drag-on".   If you are only going to listen to "editors" then why have an open discussion...seems senseless !  - Signed Non Editor but a Listener of New Ideas.  Apr 12
 * Comment We are willing to listen to anyone who can tell us if we've misjudged the situation, and that in fact the article is appropriate for Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I've seen no indication that any of the people offering opinions have bothered to learn anything about what Wikipedia is (and isn't): WP:OR, WP:NEO, WP:NOT. If you aren't going to learn what our policies and goals are, then why post? Seems senseless. Fan1967 02:04, 13 April 2006 (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.