Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transfer art


 * 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. Mkdw talk 19:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Transfer art

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems to be a non-notable neologism invented by Austrian artist Ruediger John and Klaus Heid. I can't see anything to convince me otherwise, in German or English. Sionk (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran ( t  •  c ) 01:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Delete The article text is a strange combination of uncited high claims ("finally leaving behind", "advancement") and mundane how to guide. No evidence found to establish any notability. AllyD (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up one day Shii (tock) 15:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 *  Keep but incubate. It's not a neologism; the phrase has been documented in English since at least 1992.  It has been widely reported. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried to fix it up a bit per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No one will dispute that the words 'transfer' and 'art' occasionally appear in the same sentence. But the use of the phrase by John and Heid is still a neologism with no place for it in Wikipedia. There are already articles on Decals and Brass rubbing to cover the isolated instances you've come across (above). To re-write the article about something(s) completely different negates the purpose of this AfD, doesn't it? Sionk (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You've actually made the article worse. It looks like WP:SYNTH now. Shii (tock) 01:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I tried to fix it, anyway, per WP:BOLD. If the consensus is that my efforts made it worse, then go ahead and delete it. Bearian (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2013 (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.