Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychocinetic Art (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.  MBisanz  talk 08:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Psychocinetic Art
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability never established in first debate. JNW (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy close- This was nominated what, last week? By the same nom? The decision of that was Merge. How about giving it some time for a merge discussion to actually happen instead of re-nominating it again?Umbralcorax (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For further clarification, the original debate was closed approx. 5 hours before this AFD was opened. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "If the merger is not completed promptly, this article might be re-nominated for deletion." I have done so, and will be happy to restate rationale on the merge discussion page. JNW (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5 Hours is not even close to being enough time for a proper merge discussion to take place. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The discussion has already taken place. It's the action that was needed! And that would have taken all of, oh, five minutes...  Ty  00:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Then by all means close this and allow for discussion re:merge. The best defense proposed in original debate was that "the article is of marginal interest"; at no time was significance established...what may be considered an appropriate length of time before re-nominating? JNW (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * if the people on the page discuss it and refuse to merge, then the appropriate course is a third opinion. A "merge" closing is advice, not compulsion. If they do not discuss it but do nothing at all, then you can be bold and merge it yourself. DGG (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've listed this for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts. JNW (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm still of the opinion that delete is called for here...Modernist (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * you are every bit as welcome to the opinion as those who may have said said keep, but the afd has to be closed somehow, and Stifle picked a good compromise close. I disagree with a good number of community decisions, both keeps and deletes, but that doesnt mean I try to do them all over the same day, or even the next. I wait for time to see if that consensus has changed.  This 2nd nomination shows a certain degree of inappropriate impatience--it might prove counterproductive, because such apparent over-dedication to immediate removal indicates that perhaps there might be something to be said for the article after all, and might induce uninvolved editors to think about looking for enough material to reconstruct it properly. DGG (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Point taken, and my regrets if I have been too quick to renominate. From the onset I thought the article was constructed mostly on air. If my haste does indeed inspire a fruitful search for sources, then it can not be considered counterproductive, but will have yielded a productive outcome. JNW (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Instead of creating a whole new AFD, the thing to do would have been to ask the closing admin to re-open and relist so that a consensus might emerge. That's what I would have done, instead of closing it. This produces a needless muddle. Having said that. This looks highly delete-able to me.  Dloh  cierekim  20:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I get more Google hits for "Psychocinetic Art" than Psychokinetic Art". While this is possibly a new thing, I don't believe that significant coverage exists to establish verifiability, let alone notability.  Dloh  cierekim  20:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I attempted to alert potential subject matter editors at Talk:Kinetic art for merge assistance, a couple of hours before this renomination. I would expect it to take some time though, perhaps months.  JNW's argument that his haste does indeed inspire a fruitful search for sources ignores opportunity costs.  There are so many pages on Wiki in need of help, why should this freak and fringe topic attract priority over these other needy pages? (Note: I stand by my earlier keep, for healthy diversity). No, not convinced. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your earlier keep argument was: Agree with possible misspelled psychokinetic art, perhaps dual spelling is possible. Also problems with broken English.  Found one reference:  .  IMO the article is of marginal interest.  But none of these issues provide sufficient reason for deletion.  I would give the article the benefit of doubt and vote keep, at least for the moment.  This is all speculation and guess work, which is not a proper foundation for keeping material. The one reference does not even say "psychokinetic art": it says "kinetic art" and "Psychokinematic Objects". The net result of your keep is WP:ILIKEIT.  Ty  01:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This article was created two weeks ago. Somebody whose native tongue is not English took the (noteworthy) effort to create it. There is nothing in the article that would lead me to assume lack of good faith.  It also decribes actual artwork, unknown to me.  The MIT search result above leads me to think that this type of art really may exist, perhaps in a different language, and in a different English spelling/category, what do I know.  The article has many shortcomings, no doubt, so what should be done?  Should we tag it as the mess it is and thereby put it on the endangered species list?  Or should we PROD it and delete it, like a thief who comes a night. I would give it the benefit of doubt, and therefore, time, for it to improve. And no, I don't like it. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Isn't 'psychokinetic art' the proper spelling? 67.83.85.236 (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See my comment above. And if we are actually not voting, Delete per my comment above and Tyrenius below. Long time no see. Glad you're still around.  Dloh  cierekim  00:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. Fails WP:V which is a non-negotiable policy for retention of material on wikipedia. Merge would be incorrect as it retains the term as a redirect, and there is no place for this or "psychokinetic art" either.  Ty  00:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment : "If you believe a page was wrongly deleted, or should have been deleted but wasn't, or a deletion discussion improperly closed, you should discuss this with the person who performed the deletion, or closed the debate, on their talk page. If this fails to resolve the issue, you can request review of the closure at Deletion review.--J.Mundo (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah. This is really not the way I would want to handle the situation. Has anyone contacted the closing admin? I will if not.  Dloh  cierekim  00:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well maybe not. The best option available would have been to send it to WP:DRV. This is probably going to turn into a can of worms. If this discussion stands, see my !vote. Otherwise, it's all moot. Dloh  cierekim  01:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going to contact the closing admin to ask for it to be re-opened, but this AfD happened first. Contacting the admin would have been the best thing, but JNW was obviously acting in good faith, and also within the criteria, albeit with a severe definition of "prompt". Umbralcorax said there wasn't enough time for a merge, but he edited 4 hours after the close of the first AfD, so he could have done it. The problem is that a merge decision is made and then no one does the merge.  As it's now in progress, I suggest we let it run. The first AfD was a bit threadbare, so at least there's a chance for a decent examination, now that more people are participating.  Ty  01:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why should there be such an asymmetry in effort? Why should it be painless to nominate or vote for other people's work to be deleted, and on the other hand, obliging, if you vote keep or merge.  I will only edit articles if I have some solid ground under my feet, i.e. read at least one book or peer reviewed article on the topic.  For a number of reasons, including lack of subject matter knowledge (in fact, personal priorities may come in first) I would never edit this article - I still feel wholly entitled to voice an opinion of giving a new article the benefit of doubt. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since I wasn't involved in the first AFD, why would I have merged it? My comment was that this AFD was a bit premature given how quickly it came on the heels of the last one. Maybe I'm being a bit stuck on procedure, but it just seems a tad impatient to nominate something again if the discussed merge wasn't accomplished in 5 hours. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies. A misreading - I thought you had previous involvement with the AfD/article. Comment struck.  Ty  06:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, while noting that any consensus reached here is evidently only good for five hours, so enjoy it promptly. --Lockley (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This is the first time I've ever renominated an article for deletion--I did not know quite how to do it, and was really surprised by the vigor of the ensuing discussion. That I renominated at all, let alone so soon after the first debate closed, underscored my belief that this was a very rare occurrence, that of a subject that failed basic notability standards, yet was being passed along to a merge procedure. I believed it merited further discussion. There was absolutely no intent to bollix up processes or cause difficulty, nor to offend any other contributors, administrators or otherwise, but rather a desire to revisit a basic Wikipedia guideline that I thought had been overlooked, before this continued. JNW (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I cannot imagine that you have offended anybody, not me at least. Except for the haste issue, we are debating basic principles, that's not bad at all. Anyway, a motto of mine is that only those who do nothing at all, do nothing wrong. Regards, Power.corrupts (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Much appreciated, JNW (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. No evidence has been offered that the term "psychocinetic art" exists outside of WP & WP mirrors, let alone that it's a notable subject. Ewulp (talk) 04:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 16 January 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.