Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mindfuck

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 Transwiki and Delete. A Template:Copy to Wiktionary will be added to the article, which will trigger robotic transwikification and post-action article tagging, after which the article can be deleted without further delay. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mindfuck

Mindfuck (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Unsourced since December, an obvious neologism and pretty much original research. JuJube 01:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for any of the following reasons: original research; unverifiability; listcruft; dicdef; synonymous with and already covered at nonlinear storytelling and plot twists, per the first sentence which equates the terms; no assertion that the term is notably used in literary or artistic criticism (professional or otherwise). Pop Secret 03:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom and Pop Secret--$UIT 05:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. I haven't read up on their policies in a while, but this seems like something they'd take (and they don't currently have a page for it). --- RockMFR 06:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I have to say, looking at the title I immediately thought Speedy Delete G1, but I realized I have heard the term before, especially in reference to these movies. More citations are needed, but this has the making of a real article. I know I'm on the losing end of this battle thusfar, but I'm not going with the majority on this one. I think we need to give this article a little more credit and allow it to go beyond the list stage which exists right now. --Valley2city^₪‽ 08:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki - this is in common enough use to be more than your usual neologism, but is better suited to Wiktionary. The long lists could be lost, though, as they pretty much boil down to "list of movies containing some kind of plot twist". - iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• If this article is true, keep. It seems to describe a known literary technique. But surely that sort of literary technique has another older non-sexual name? Anthony Appleyard 16:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki but only in the normal usage, meaning malicious psychological game-playing - that's certainly worthy of inclusion in a dictionary. But this article's usage is different and original research: it fails to provide RS showing it to be an established literary and movie genre term. Tearlach 02:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary (English). Even though I'm no longer living in an English-speaking country this is a very common phrase and has started to be used in other languages also. Xanucia 22:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons cited above. Yakuman (数え役満) 05:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki definition to Wiktionary, but delete OR list of films, etc. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• delete Gman124 22:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The article could use some expansion and sources, but I think it's worth having on Wikipedia. I have heard the term "Mindfuck" before, and it seems to be more of a genre or subgenre than just the use of certain literary devices. --66.41.145.88 02:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep per 66.41.145.88 and Valley2city thewinchester 04:28, 10 April 2007 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.