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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No supporting references provided or found, other than the blog of the person who created the phase. Non-notable neologism. I42 (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ron Silliman is perhaps the most notable poet-blogger in the blogosphere, practically defining what is or isn't notable in contemporary poetry. Therefore this is a notable neologism. When he coins a term it will immediately be used far and wide among poets. This article should not be deleted, as it will be of considerable import. Customranger (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)— Customranger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Yes, of course, Silliman is very important voice in discussing present-day poetry. But what if this concept would never be mentioned again either by him or by any other sources? I think now it is too early to make it the subject of encyclopedian article. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are a blog and an article about something else that doesn't mention the subject. The examples of poets in this school include only one reckoned notable enough for an article here - and that article oddly does not contain the term 'New Precisionism'. A search for '"New Precisionism" poetry' gives five ghits. This includes this article and two for the unfortunately named Silliman's blog. The remaining two appear quite irrelevant. "Ron Silliman is perhaps the most notable poet-blogger in the blogosphere". Maybe. I cannot see the term getting used in the circles I move in by any of the poets (published poets at that) that are there. Admittedly we are not in the blogosphere... I'm afraid that not every utterance by notable people is of itself notable. In time this one may be. As of now, it ain't. Peridon (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to have escaped notice so far [1]. Get some attention in a literary publication and come back when you do. Mandsford 21:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above points seems rather weak. Peridon thinks Ron Silliman has a funny name, and isn't one of his poet friends. Do any of you know how many hits this page has already received? Probably tons. It is a valuable resource for New Precisionism. Once removed it will inevitably need to be recreated, and perhaps not in a fashion that is not as well worded. Customranger (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's hardly a weak point that the article is not reliably and independently sourced, or that there are no independent reliable sources to be found in a search. Also, I used the word 'unfortunately'; I didn't say 'funny' - you did.... Peridon (talk) 09:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this well-worded and valuable resource can be placed in the article about Ron Silliman until the topic achieves some notability. Mandsford 21:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#OR. This term appears to have been coined yesterday—that is, the day the article was written—so it's highly unlikely that the existence of the "movement" it denotes is verifiable in reliable sources. Deor (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable neologism. No reliable references exist. Inniverse (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per non. Rangataua huntaway (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2010 (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.