Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neosurrealism

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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neosurrealism[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unreferenced essay on a nonnotable art movement. This article has been tagged as an essay for 3+ years, but no sources have been added or improvement made to the writing. I can find no indication that this "movement" even exists. RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve through normal editing. A one minute effort with Google Books shows dozens of mentions of this art term. Clearly, some are better than others. The solution is to incorporate good references into the article, rather than deleting it. Cullen328 (talk) 04:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been referenced since 2006.[1] Any debate as to whether or not the references are satisfactory should be held at Talk:Neosurrealism since so far this does not seem to have been done. Thincat (talk) 10:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neosurrealism as described in the article doesn't exist. The term primarily refers to a tendency in 1970s Argentine art, which isn't mentioned in the article. Or it describes poetry [2] [3]. Or Freddy Got Fingered [4]. Unless you're talking about Argentina or poetry, it's just a word.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Thank you for finally nominating this. I'd spotted this years ago, but couldn't be bothered to put it together. This entire article is a farce written by non-notable artist User:Artsgrie, or George Grie to spam his work. Neo-surrealism has nothing to with the content of the article, which does not explain how it is remotely different to surrealism, or why it can't be covered as a tiny non-spam paragraph in the main surrealism article. - hahnch e n 14:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These two clearly well-informed contributions after my "keep" have set me rethinking. The current article indeed appears to show considerable lack of balance, possibly due to a conflict of interest. However, rather than merely deleting the article it would be so much better to expand it by adding information on other meanings of the term and by pruning some of the existing material. My own knowledge is insufficient for me to attempt this. A merge to surrealism might indeed turn out to be appropriate. Thincat (talk) 11:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 09:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is effectively a WP:OR essay. Its mooring to the supplied references looks dubious, as neither Riffaterre nor the Tel Quel group are particularly known for indulging in fantasy imagery. Nor does it look salvageable by merging content to Surrealism, as its 2nd paragraph effectively says this supposed movement does not have the same interests as surrealism. Arguably an alternative would be to merge to Fantasy art but does nailing one minimally referenced article to another compound a problem? AllyD (talk) 09:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking further at the article's two "references", from what I can see on the public side of the paywall barriers (Ref1, Ref2), neither concern the topic of this article. At most, they might be said to be relevant to one sentence in the article "Any art movement is defined as a tendency or style in art with a specific common philosophy or goal, followed by a group of artists during a restricted period of time." but that is merely a generalist statement. AllyD (talk) 12:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There may have been something in Latin America that might qualify as a movement. There are lots of people using the word to mean pretty much any old thing from surrealism itself to anything weird and po-mo. An essay that tries to pull it altogether is not what we need here. Mangoe (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Ethico, AllyD & Mangoe. No beef in this sandwich. Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are lots of references, and plenty of non-trivial ones. It doesn't seem to be particularly well defined, but I've found that to be true of more than one artistic category. I agree with Cullen328. The Steve 11:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-encyclopedic, non-notable, sorry...Modernist (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Mangoe. WP:COI as shown by Hahnchen. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.