Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-gothic surrealism


 * 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   delete.  Ron h jones (Talk) 01:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Neo-gothic surrealism

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

This is an article about a nonnotable neologism, and is clearly intended to promote said neologism. A Google search comes up with 18,300 hits, most of them not relevant (based on the separate terms "neo-gothic" and "surrealism"); and a search for the term in quotes gives 7,760 hits, but these do not meet our requirements for reliable sources (blogs, DeviantART, WP mirrors, gaming and artist websites, etc.). A search on DTRHStudios, the creator of the article, gives 7 results, but indicates an attempt to spread the use of the word on the web. Simply put, though, the term is not notable, and the article has been in its unreferenced state for two months, because no acceptable refs can be found. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 23:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, lack of acceptable sources to establish notability. Andrea105 (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete inclination here too, seems to be made up. Too bad, as I'd probably enjoy that genre.  DTRHStudios is likely Down the Rabbit Hole Studios. Шизомби (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  -- —Farix (t &#124; c) 15:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: The content was copied here under the GDFL. Anyone can move it to more appropriate wikis, like Animanga Wikia. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Entirely original research with no reliable sources to verify the article's contents. A Google search excluding Wiki-mirrors comes up with just 32 hits, all of which aren't reliable sources and simply mention the term in passing. I'll also note that the examples are entirely based on the articles OC's point of view and not on any reliable sources. —Farix (t &#124; c) 15:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not enough of evidences of notability to assert the relevance of the subject for Wikipedia. There is no reference or citation to make the content credible and prove that it is not some original research. It may turn into something relevant for Wikipedia in the future but right now it isn't. --KrebMarkt 17:48, 14 December 2009 (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.