Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pansurrealism
Pansurrealism[edit]
There are no hits on any major search engines for this term, but there will be soon if this article stays on wikipedia and gets syndicated... I think that is probably the author's intent, to (ab)use Wikipedia to help popularize a new term. The article currently quotes one of the people editing it, and in my opinion is not likely to ever be Wikipedia-quality text. Delete. ~leif ☺ HELO 05:14, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, self-confessed neologism. —Stormie 06:31, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
- Clean it and kill it. Delete.--MaxMad 11:02, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Hmm .. a made up branch of surrealism. BJAODN? At the very least, delete - TB 11:45, Oct 5, 2004
- Delete - David Gerard 11:50, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Do what you want. As far as a figure like Terrance Lindall creates a new term, it is in the history books. That' what major figures do, redefine. If you are able to follow the logic of the term's creation and if you allow that Lindall has a vast following world wide, you would have to accept the term. but follow your hearts. The term is now valid wordlwide. SHR
- I'm not saying the term can't ever be "valid", just that it is currently unencyclopedic. If (without the help of wikipedia) this term does come into wide usage, then one day it might deserve an article here. So far that is not the case. And like so many other things you've written, your statement that the "term is now valid wordlwide" is technically not false (who defines "valid"?) but is misleading, and also misspelled. Ultimately, I think your edits consistently show bad faith and I ask you to please stop your (sometimes subtle) trolling of wikipedia. Copying and pasting this VfD page to Talk:Surrealism was not appropriate, nor was calling pro-delete voters "idiots" (see [1]). ~leif ☺ HELO 20:00, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Point accepted. Please delete with my good grace. But to say I am abusing Wikipedia to get the term in use is slander. It will be in use anyway. I know you do not like me. But you have a NPOV meaning NEGATIVE point of view. That is not good for your bright career as an editor. Apologies for the "idiot" remark..uncalled for. SHR
- On the contrary, I do not dislike you; I don't even know who you are. I do however dislike the wikipedia edit history, from several different IP addresses, that I presume to be from the same person (many signed "SHR"). And I stand by my description of much of the said activity as "abuse". Thank you for not arguing further about the deletion of this article, and declaring your "good grace" with regards to it. ~leif ☺ HELO 22:13, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Point accepted. Please delete with my good grace. But to say I am abusing Wikipedia to get the term in use is slander. It will be in use anyway. I know you do not like me. But you have a NPOV meaning NEGATIVE point of view. That is not good for your bright career as an editor. Apologies for the "idiot" remark..uncalled for. SHR
- I'm not saying the term can't ever be "valid", just that it is currently unencyclopedic. If (without the help of wikipedia) this term does come into wide usage, then one day it might deserve an article here. So far that is not the case. And like so many other things you've written, your statement that the "term is now valid wordlwide" is technically not false (who defines "valid"?) but is misleading, and also misspelled. Ultimately, I think your edits consistently show bad faith and I ask you to please stop your (sometimes subtle) trolling of wikipedia. Copying and pasting this VfD page to Talk:Surrealism was not appropriate, nor was calling pro-delete voters "idiots" (see [1]). ~leif ☺ HELO 20:00, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Maybe I do have several IP's, Our rather large enterprise has an old Cray master computer converted from government use. It may be a method of avoiding surveilance. Anyway, you have a misspelling on your "leif" page - "incresingly." SHR
- Delete, although the history should be kept so future generations can marvel at the irony of Daniel C. Boyer being dismissive about (other people's) surrealistic neologisms -- GWO 15:37, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Where is the irony? Where I am dismissive of this neologism? Far from it. Stop making stuff up. --Daniel C. Boyer 12:51, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Neologism, not notable. — Gwalla | Talk 19:36, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete indeed. Neologism, not notable. Fire Star 20:22, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete this neologism. --Improv 19:38, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Another Delete vote. --Neschek 16:59, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Once the neologism does catch on, and when it shows a particularly unique usage, then it should go in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Geogre 20:56, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)