Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somatopia

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Somatopia

Somatopia is a neologism coined by Lycoming College professor Darby Lewes for the stock metaphor of the female body as landscape. It clocks up altogether 11 unique ghits, the top one from Wikipedia. The others are from the title of the monograph, so usage has really really not caught on.

The article itself is unreferenced original research at its finest. Dr Zak 15:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete as a non-notable neologism and original research. In addition, although this isn't grounds for deletion (and the article is unsuitable for WP anyway), both of the main contributors to this article have been spotted vandalizing WP multiple times. -- Kicking222 16:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete as well. The article even claims it is original reserach by saying "Associate professor of English Darby Lewes has dubbed..." —Mets501^talk 22:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep: This is an excellent article on a topic well known to students and critics of literature and has literary, historical, cultural, psychological, and sociological significance. It addresses a real genre of literature, as the novel and other literary allusions it references show and as the quotations of Professor Darby Lewes substantiates. Dr Zak has been involved, along with Mdwh and others in protracted edit wars; this looks like an attempt by him to avenge himself rather than to initiate a general dialogue concerning the merits or demerits of a Wikipedia article. Somatopia is perhaps better known by an older term, "pornotopia." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.9 (talk • contribs).

• Comment I've never edited this article. Mdwh 01:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.--blue520 09:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - what happened to the article? it was deleted already by somebody after only this brief discussion, with just two or three people saying delete it. this seems very unfair. wikipedia should give every writer and every article a fair hearing before a decision to delete or keep is made. what's going on? something here doesn't pass the smell test!

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.