Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actioner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. - Mailer Diablo 11:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Actioner

neologism. WP:NOT wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Crossmr 15:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I wish authors of articles were prevented from removing the prod tag (at least without also making substantial edits). -- Merope 15:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up on the corner of 6th Street and Ave A in New York City at approx. 7:32pm on the 7th day of August 2006. -- Fan-1967 15:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • while the actual word is new, the events and works it attempts to describe have been going on with a community of performers around the world for some time. These people create works that do not fit into the notions of dance, theater, happenings or performance art, though they draw upon pieces of each dicipline. The creation of a term that acts as a melding of a collection of ideas is an attempt to make the ideas behind it more clear, instead of constantly attempting to re-define current terms that are inadequate, and at times incorrect for the work that is being made. By creating a term, to describe something that has existed on the fringes of many fields, creates a field of its own from within which critique, structures, and development of the form may take place.--Januszj 15:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:V, Wikipedia, she be many things, but a free webhosting service she ain't among others WilyD 16:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Obvious delete, but I would like to put in the possible suggestion of a redirect to Action game, as "actioner" is a common synonym. -- Kicking222 23:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NFT and WP:V which will be impossible to meet. How can a reliable source exist on a term that was made up yesterday? Mangojuicetalk 01:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • comment WP:NEO Actioner is a new term, but it is well-explained, so the prohibition against neologisms (that the new term will not be understood) is not applicable here. WP:NFT This term was not "made up" on a whim, but rather created by serious arts practitioners in an attempt to describe an existing phenomenon that had no current name. WP:V The term itself is not verifiable, but the phenomenon is clearly visible to anyone watching current trends in performance and visual/conceptual art (and even in advertising--e.g. viral marketing has "actioner" tendencies). The irony of deleting the term from Wikipedia is that that will help to ensure that it continues to be an invisible trend in a liminal space, and that the robust movement will continue to be voiceless.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.137.250 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 9 August 2006
    wikipedia is not a place to start trends or further them. If and when this term ever gains notability it will be entitled to an article here. Wikipedia is not a primary source for information.--Crossmr 06:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    You need to read all of WP:NEO. Especially the part about "Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources." Since the word was invented the other day, there are no secondary sources on its meaning or usage. Fan-1967 17:44, 9 August 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.