Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Solaris Effect


 * 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   redirected to Steven Dillon. Fabrictramp |  talk to me  19:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The Solaris Effect

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

non notable neologism that has been coined by one professor and is according to Google Scholar only used by this professor and no one else. The article also claims that the Solaris Effect is just an expansion of what Ingmar Bergman or James Monaco said - all these two said was that Tarkovsky had a lot of influence (indeed he had), but this does not make this neologism more notable. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * BlueSalo is correct that Bergmann and Monaco did not use the expression (as far as I am aware of). That was not for notability, but historic context. EricDiesel (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: A neologism used by only one person. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 16:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Question' - how can you call it a "non-notable" neologism when the work that coined it is an academic work published by a serious academic press? Writing a book about your neologism and getting UT Press to publish a book about your neologism kinda makes it notable, not so? Guettarda (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the book is not about the neologism, but about the influence of Tarkovsky on contemporary cinema. Without having read the book, but just looking at book description and the content at Google Books, it looks to me that the word Solaris effect is just a catchy book title, and not even a neologism that describes a concept. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * KEEP, Strong Not a neologism nor a one user expression. I regularly used the expression "The Solaris Effect" at my Stanford University lectures (given to audiences of about 500 people every week) from 1984 to 1992, after first hearing it a film lecture at UCLA back in the 1970's. (I actually also used it to talk about film funding and censorship, in addition to film language.) The Steven Dillon's 2006 book title is completley independent of my use over those eight years. I had never heard of him before someone called me up and said to check the title out. So both mine and Dillon's uses likely came from some coinage back in the 1970's. EricDiesel (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Does media cite you using it? Otherwise it's WP:ILIKEIT. VG &#x260E; 00:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Question - Was anyone there? I was soundly and publicly chewed out for “mistranslating” the expression “the Solaris effect”, following my lecture of the same title, and screening, at Stanford U. (I had never seen it in print at the time.) The complaining person, a visiting scholar from the Soviet Bloc in computer science, asserted that the expression was used in cybernetics circles in the Soviet Bloc to refer to some aspect of “memory” and “mental representation”, and arose from discussions related to Lem’s freak out over Tarkovsky’s interpretation of the book. My talk, on the other hand, was mostly about funding and censorship, only secondarily about film language, and had nothing to do with memory and representation. The complaining scholar went on to give a detailed secondary “lecture” on Lem’s reaction to Tarkovsky, then went on to talk about fax machines and something about gay rights in the Soviet Union and the impact on Gorbachev. To trigger memory, this was in the lobby of Cubberley Hall after the screening, and he was standing next to another Russian in CS named “Andrei” who had red hair and freckles and was a regular at all the Russian screenings. (Admittedly, my recollection might be like Kelvin recalling his wife’s dress.) The gay rights and fax machine comment should help place the year. Was anyone who is reading this at that talk, and if so, do you have a copy of my lecture handout with the title? EricDiesel (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article does not cite accessible, reliable sources and as such I am unable to verify that this term is used. Stifle (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * : See Google Books for a limited preview of the book in question. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * : Unacceptable argument. Many if not most math articles cite books that are not freely available on the net; the same goes for many other fields. Wikipedia is not "the encyclopedia of stuff freely available online". VG &#x260E; 00:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ::That is a primary source; it does not satisfy WP:RS. Stifle (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ::: Primary sources can be cited; a primary source is not automatically unreliable as you imply. Citing primary sources is commonly done for most features of software, book/movie plots etc. WP:RS is a guideline and uses "should" not "must" in Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. My best guess here is that author is authoritative because he is a critic and film historian, and that book has a reliable publication process being published by University of Texas Press, so the only missing adjective here is "third-party". I can live with that in this context. VG &#x260E; 00:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge to Andrei Tarkovsky. Reywas92 Talk  20:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * REDIRECTED to author Steven Dillon, with link to Solaris, per above comments, until more written sources of uses of expression, prior to the book or following it, are acquired. EricDiesel (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * : Exactly what I was going to suggest (keep as redirect if anyone's counting). VG &#x260E; 00:27, 21 September 2008 (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.