Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neosurrealism (2nd nomination)


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Neosurrealism
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Previous article was deleted at AfD, but as the previous article was an original essay and this just a one line stub, CSD G4 is not applicable. However, the previous AfD clearly found the underlying subject to be non notable and absolutely nothing to indicate any change in the notability of the subject. Delete for failure to satisfy WP:GNG. Safiel (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: An unreferenced WP:SPA article claiming that a secret group is organised by a non-notable individual. Nothing to verify nor to indicate notability found in my searches. AllyD (talk) 08:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Nothing suggesting any notability. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Nothing suggesting notability. (I am always puzzled by the !vote Speedy Delete when it doesn't cite a specific A7 or other speedy, but delete.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as just a stub (the current content appears to be invalid). It undoubtedly exists as an art term; it appears to be era-related to Neo-Dada, but more digging into sources is needed. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete- one-line unreferenced stub, unverifiable even in principle ("secret formation"). Reyk  YO!  07:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That existing content is rubbish, obviously. However there is no doubt at all that the term, as "Neo Surrealism", exists (take a look at the Google Scholar results). Moreover, it seems to be distinct enough from Surrealism to justify a separate article. However, I don't have access to suitable sources to add content. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm skeptical, but if you think it's possible to write a different article, by all means blow it up and start over. Reyk  YO!  05:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Unlike, for example Neo-Expressionism Neosurrealism is not a term that is in common use. There may be any number of artists who refer to themselves as neo-surrealists, but that doesn't make a movement. Mduvekot (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2017 (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.