Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Sincerity


 * 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

New Sincerity
Though the article is cleverly coloured at the start to look like a serious article (e.g. cites of legitimate books like Scarry & Steiner} it seems to be largely a hoax, & the article eventually devolves into a fart joke. The history of the article shows that it seems always intended as a joke (rather than having been vandalized). ND 20:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Actually if you do a search on google there's plenty of stuff on it, having checked the history of the article I'd say it's clearly been vandalized: the initial post seems pretty sensible. Its subsequent edits that have pushed the page beyond the pale, however the amount of discussion around the issue on the internet would argue for its inclusion. Driller thriller 21:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, looking a bit through the history I'm wondering if the best thing is to simply revert to the very first version of the article? It looks to me like the problem is that the article started off as a serious piece on one topic (the mooted "New Sincerity" in the wake of 9/11) & then got expanded via a completely different topic (a radio show), & then the latter seems to have attracted some jokers (fans of the radio show? grad students with nothing better to do?) who have completely overrun the original, well-intended article with piles of nonsense. -- I'm not very impressed with the person who's posted to the Talk page that the article deserves preservation because it's "brilliantly retarded". ND 04:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, per WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't think anyone's suggested that this is original research. Driller thriller 00:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I just did. Stifle (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I am actually writing a paper on this at the moment, and I assure you there is fair basis for New Sincerity to be included, but the article has certainly been vandalised and changed beyond the truth of the matter. Although many people claim to be the originator of New Sincerity, the phrase has been around for almost a decade in describing the work of director Wes Anderson and more recently people like Jared Hess. I think there has been enough discussion about this in various essays and magazine articles to warrent it's inclusion. (Hippo Shaped)15:22, 06 May 2006
 * If you're writing a paper, you'll have no problem citing sources for this phrase.
 * Onion: Does it bother you to be potentially pegged as the head of a new movement? I know there’s a Film Comment article that mentions you as part of something called ‘the new sincerity.’ Do you pay attention to any of that?
 * Wes Anderson: Well, I don’t know. Who else is in ‘the new sincerity?’
 * Onion: I don’t know. I think it’s just you at this point, and they’re waiting for people to line up behind you.
 * Wes Anderson: Oh, well, I’m not waiting for that line to form, and I don’t expect it to. I don’t know if there’s ever going to be much of a movement in that direction. It sounds like one that could be boring for a lot of people.
 * It appears Anderson himself doesn't know anything about it. http://www.coldbacon.com/movies/wesanderson.html

''This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!'' Ezeu 09:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC) * Strong Oppose Well that interview was from 1999, and references the 'Film Comment' magazine article from January that year. It was around that time the phrase started so of course he didn't know. Whether or not you agree on who invented the phrase or when, the phrase describes something not described in any other way and has been used in a variety of places over the last 7 years. I'd fix this article myself, but i've never really written an article in the Wikipedia style before, but if I have time I will give it a go. Almost the whole thing needs to be reorganized and rewritten, but not deleted. (Hippo Shaped) Re:Above(17th May 2006)
 * Delete. Unsourced neologism. -- GWO
 * Comment The concept doesn't seem to be entirely made up for Wikipedia: . E.g. the first draft of the article seems genuine enough, no fart jokes there. I don't know about notability though, and the lack of sources is unfortunate. Weregerbil 13:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, quite a few Google hits, although there are zero for New Sincericists, so the last few sentences could probably go. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

''This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!'' Deathphoenix ʕ 04:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: After two full listings on AfD no one has found any sources? At this point, its safe to say its unverifiable. --Hetar 06:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. This search shows that the term is around and is applied on many blogs etc to the work of certain directors.  Equally, it shows no academic or mainstream media mentions that I can see (only got to page 3, admittedly).  So, this is more of a meme-type thing.  Since none of the artists who've had the label attached to their work appear to know about it or encourage it, the question is whether there is anything real here, or just a phrase that sounds good and has spread across the internet a bit. Vizjim 09:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unsourced, unverifiable. If someone knows about the concept: trim the article mercilessly and leave only stuff to which you can provide verifiable reliable sources. Weregerbil 10:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - can someone tell me how an anon started this article?!! - Gl e n   TC (Stollery)  11:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Anons used to be able to start new articles until 2005-12-16. Heck, George W. Bush was started by an anon :-) Weregerbil 12:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Ah ha, learn something new yada yada yada :). Thanks mate, appreciate the response. - Gl e n   TC (Stollery)  14:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete: . . . which plays upon Judith Butler's notion of citationality and the body, in order to consider beauty and intersubjectivity as outcomes of the body's performance of itself. I'll have some blue cheese dressing with my word salad, thanks.  Smerdis of Tlön 14:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Hasn't this nonsense been killed via AfD at least once before? -- Kicking222 15:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's a term that's been around for several years and has been appropriated by a few different groups. I just think it needs cleaning up. Wells 298 10:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It's a term with enough history and meat that an article is useful. The article as it stands now isn't that great, but it'll improve with time. -- Brett day 08:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Weregerbil. Zaxem 11:48, 22 May 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.