Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surrism manifesto


 * 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 Speedy delete G7. Non admin closure. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 17:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Surrism manifesto

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

There's no speedy delete category (at least that I could figure out) for this, so I've brought it here. This is original research and completely unsourced. Google hits basically go to blogs and sites linked to these artists. There's no independent, third-party sources.  freshacconci  talk talk  11:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  — freshacconci  talk talk  11:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete (G12). Before anything else its a copyvio of this myspace page, the rest can wait in case the speedy G12 I just placed gets declined. G12 was declined, and copyvio material removed. Enki H. (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't click on the myspace page. Hopefully, that will make short work of this.  freshacconci  talk talk  12:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 *  Speedy Delete per above, Nothing worth keeping...Modernist (talk) 12:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unsourced, original research, hoax ("proretroarticularrist", "trransparentoformatological") and most importantly: searches turn up no independent secondary sources to indicate that this is a notable topic that would merit an article even if the existing problems were fixed. Enki H. (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call it a hoax. Sadly, they're serious. Neologisms such as "proretroarticularrist" are attempts at absurdist wordplay. That's fine for a personal website, blog, myspace and so on, but until someone actually writes about this (I'll be holding my breath) this is original research.  freshacconci  talk talk  13:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree about the wordplay, but IMO the way the words are used in the article as an adjective without further qualification is deceptive in its implication that the words have a definition that meaningfully characterizes the verb. Ergo hoax. Enki H. (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I see where you're coming from.  freshacconci  talk talk  16:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedied. The creator requested deletion, and there were no significant edits by other editors.  As always when I speedy during an AfD, I'd appreciate it if someone else would do the close. - Dank (push to talk) 17:10, 10 June 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.