Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neofuturism

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. Maxim_(talk) 00:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that this utterly fails WP:V and is probably a hoax is much stronger than the argument which says it's only a reference problem thus no need for deletion

Neofuturism

Get rid of this article. It is primarily the work of a single editor, who has only two edits (the other edit was an upload of a photograph of, supposedly, himself). Merge it, delete it, I don't think it matters. But as it stands, this article is very much below Wikipedia's standards. 75.111.18.26 (talk · contribs) Copied from article talk page. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 12:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Specifically what is of concern to the nominator? Does he/she mean to say this article lacks notability? Or just that it is not well sourced and could have COI? AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs a rewrite, but it shouldn't be deleted. --Belinrahs (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Afd is not the forum to submit articles that have WP:PROBLEMS. Google Books/Scholar verify this is a notable topic. скоморохъ 18:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmmmm.... This article seems to be a hoax. It's hard to wade through all the buzzword noise, but google suggests that that neofuturism is actually an artistic movement, rather than philosophical. So I say, Delete. Mangoe (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 20:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: agree that it needs a re-write but a google search shows that this is notable. -- Roleplayer (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but with {{unreferenced}} tag. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Mangoe and the nominator that, once you sort through the sesquipedelian bullshit, the article does not square with the traditional definitions of neofuturism in art and architecture. The author appears to be having fun with this as an intellectual movement, a literary movement, an aid to "the impoverished field of future studies" (it provided "greatly needed neologisms and paleologisms", thank you). And there's now an intellectual divide in the school, which (naturally) makes adequate deconstruction impossible. Naturally. Mandsford (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An article might be written on one (or more) of the several movements or trends that the word has been used to denote—in particular, the Russian artistic movement—but there's nothing to do with this particular article except to jettison it. Obfuscatory goobledegook intended to disguise a complete lack of meaning. (And, by the way, it fails WP:V, since you'll not find any sources to support the "information" contained in this mess.) Deor (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article reads like someone's pet Sokal hoax, in the total absence of WP:RS sources this completely fails WP:V and has to go. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2008 (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.