Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaleidoscopography

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. Wizardman 17:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kaleidoscopography[edit]

Non notable neoglism, article possibly created to push a website. Serious original research problems. Prod removed by author without comment. J Milburn (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Borderline advertising, and a neologism no matter how you slice it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Along with TenPoundHammer, no sources. -WarthogDemon 00:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here is the Justification. I am an artist and have developed the terms to define my style. 5th World Art defines the approach and mindset. The terms, Kaleidoscopography and Opalescent Zurich, define two distinct styles. I am proud of these techniques that I developed myself. The intent is to post these on Wikipedia to define all three terms. These are legitimate and the result of my efforts. The links to the web sites are there to describe the work and provide reference. These are my first postings on Wikipedia and I have found documentation to be lacking in usability. I have not yet found a getting started. I have been pouring through the documentation to understand the process. Honestly, I thought posting information would be much easier. I welcome any comments on approach and articles on how to use this. I did find the articles on sections. However, if anyone can comment on how to reply to these, I would appreciate your time! - 5thWorldArt
Delete - I'm sorry you found Wikipedia to be difficult to use, 5thWorldArt. It can be a little difficult to learn, and starting with your own article is often the hardest way to do it. I'm afraid that this article fails several of our guidelines, notably against original research. You have stated that you made the terms up yourself, which is not material that is allowed here. Articles need to be about notable subjects, and that notability is established by cited sources which have documented both its existence and its historical or social importance. Once your terms have gained traction in the art community, and there are books or documentaries about their use, we could have an article here about them. -- Kesh (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/5th world art. J Milburn (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagre Google "Kaleidoscopography" and you will find someone else has started using this term. I find it odd that your rules delete articles when Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I may have made this up but this defines an art style. I have seen terms defined that are pure marketing and their logos used and frustrated by this line of reasoning. I am a legitimate user and have a term to define. I ask, if this cannot be posted here, where can it be posted. At what point does someone decide this is of social or historical importance? - 5thWorldArt
- Regardless of whether a few people on the web are using your term, you have to provide reliable sources to show its significance to the art world. Wikipedia is not a place for you to promote yourself or your creations. Get a few independent magazines or documentaries about your new terms, and then you'd satisfy our notability guidelines. -- Kesh (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, defining something and then hoping someone will use it is not how notable is used. King Pickle (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism and something admittedly made up one day. No assertion of notability. No sources to show any coverage of any kind anywhere. Wikipedia is for after something has been established as notable. It's not the place to try to make something notable. DarkAudit (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems like an advertising. Crespus2006 (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. MADEUP and spammy. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per WP:NEO. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and these rules as they pertain to these descriptions equate to art censorship!!! This is about Art and a style that has been purchased. I have three pages that have been deleted, 5thworldart (5th world art), kaleidoscopography and Opalescent Zurich. Within two weeks each will have a web site presenting the art and a discussion on what each is. Currently you are welcome to browse www.5thworldart.com however, this site is a draft and is to be broken into four web sites. Each of the styles are in private homes (by collectors) and a very reputable design showroom is considering taking on my art as a new frontier. I am very serious about my work and the terms are being used. As for being "spammy" - if i were spamming, i would use other profiles to come back at this. spam is not in my ethics dna. there are worlds within worlds out there and this art is not of your world. I respectfully request that wiipedia restore these pages.

--5thworldart (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Show us reliable sources and we will. It's not so difficult. If these are such valid terms, how come no one but you has ever written about them? J Milburn (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable neologism with no reliable sources. Klausness (talk) 16:41, 22 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.