Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poesybeat

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poesybeat

Neologism; Google search doesn't indicate a widely established term (voters - please confirm). Cheese Sandwich 19:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Niteowlneils 21:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Kjkolb 04:56, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- L. Lounsbury 01:08, August 23, 2005 -- as a poesybeater, I'm not sure what newness has to do with whether an artform exists and merits definition. The fact is, poesybeat is a niche artform practiced by a growing number of artists. How many Google hits does it take to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia?preceding comment by Special:Contributions/63.171.106.25
• Keep. -- J.Stacy 01:08, August 23, 2005 -- There are over one hundred and fifty members at the site poesybeat.org who use the term and make the art form of poesybeat. When did "dada" become "real?"preceding comment by Special:Contributions/209.7.38.7
• Keep. -- G. Holub 04:38, August 23, 2005 -- This movement is real and there are over 150 people who are making it real. This is a new art form, and it will only hinder progress if we pretend it does not exist.preceding comment by Special:Contributions/24.131.110.181
• Comment for poesybeat folks: No one is claiming it does not exist, we're just trying to enforce a certain standard of notability to merit an encyclopedia article. In my opinion this has the appearance of a relatively new and non-widespread artform, so a vote on the topic is appropriate. --Cheese Sandwich 20:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Fair enough -- it is indeed a "new and non-widespread artform." If that causes it to fall below the standard of inclusion for Wikipedia, then so be it. It seems to me that one advantage of Wikipedia over the long-standing, non-democratic encyclopedias is its ability to pick up on innovations. I don't pretend to be well-versed in Wikipedia's mission, however. -- L. Lounsbury 2:44 pm, 24 August 2005.preceding comment by Special:Contributions/63.171.106.25
• Delete. The movement still appears to be too new to meet verifiability standards. Please come back after the mainstream press or an academic journal prints an article on the movement. --Allen3 ^talk 22:36, August 28, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.