Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occlusionist

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. Mo0[talk] 00:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Occlusionist

the use of "occlusions" or similar words may be common in this sense, but Google only fetches 35 results for "occlusionist", and none of them relate to this. AdamBiswanger1 00:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - the cited article does not appear to use the term. Artw 00:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete although occlusions are a well known phenomenon of binocular vision the term occlusionist as in a digital artist seems to be made up neologism of zero notablility.--Nick Y. 00:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, WP:NEO--TBCTaLk?!? 02:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NEO. --Coredesat talk 02:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete even the reference cited does not use the term. Pascal.Tesson 02:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a proto/neologism.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. MichaelBillington 06:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Nick. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 08:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Artw and Pascal.Tesson. Universitytruth 21:36, 27 June 2006 (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.