Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osmodrama


 * 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 no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Osmodrama

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to be WP:OR related only to Berlin-based artist Wolfgang Georgsdorf, and his Smeller (installation) and not to any known genre of art. The title "Osmodrama" also looks like Georgsdorf's creation. If there is any sourced information contained here not in the Smeller (installation) article it could be moved there. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - Google doesn't want to search on Osmodrama and offers me a different keyword, which in itself indicates a lack of mention out there. On being told that I really want to search on Osmodrama, it finds a Kickstarter listing in German and a listing in Russian.  The German listing was publicizing a festival of the technology.  So my conclusion is that the title is not notable.  I said, in declining the page when it was a draft, that it read promotionally, but I was not sure what it was promoting.  The answer appears to be that it is promoting the technology.  This raises the question of whether the proponent has a conflict of interest, and this quacks like promotion of a technology.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - After search, no evidence of notability of the term or of the genre, and the genre appears to be made up. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep There are three reliable sources in German, Deutsche Welle, Süddeutsche Zeitung and Die Zeit. Two of them refer to Osmodrama as a festival, DW as an artform. I'd suggest that while Osmaodrama was a neologism coined by Georgsdorf, it is now used by reliable sources to discuss and analyze the concept, WP:NEO no longer applies. My preference would be that the article focuses on the festival. 13:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC) Vexations (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete There is not really wide coverage. For example, in the abovementioned German sources: a) The DW piece is just one so far as I can tell (in both German and English, language versions), actually a self-presentation; b) The SZ piece is again only one ; c) In Die Zeit, just two articles. All these, and probably many more, are not beyond expected coverage for an artistic project, in the sense of giving some basic info about what is going on around this weekend. In other words, the "increasing number of reports on Osmodrama" per se is not something unusual for public events, any public event. ——Chalk19 (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Why would you characterize the article in DW as "a self-presentation". It was written by Michelle Ostwald, an editor at DW. I think that's an independent source.


 * Also, the article in die Zeit, which you refer to as "not beyond expected coverage" and "some basic info about what is going on around this weekend", is a substantial (1698 word) article, not simply a rehashed press release that we might consider routine coverage as described inWP:ROUTINE. Vexations (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Because it is an article that reproduces things said by Christophe Laudamiel and Wolfgang Georgsdorf ("He describes it …", " “It has nothing to do with magic,” he says …", "“The first attempts at creating a scent cinema go back to 1906,” the artist recounts" etc.), i.e. it is an interview in the form of an article, thus a self-presentation actually. 2) I didn't say that it is a press release, but it is the covarage from any media what is usually expected for any artistic project, event etc that is public. There is nothing exeptional in that, as it is, per se. ——Chalk19 (talk) 07:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2019 (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.