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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Open pop star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neologism coined by the neoism movement. No evidence that anyone else uses it. At best it could be made a redirect to neoism. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, No evidence to suggest anyone even uses it. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Neoism. The articles are really about the same thing and contain the same information. Borock (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it feels odd calling this a neologism if it's several decades old, but it's clearly not a term or concept that ever took off or got any use outside its creator and arguably their direct associates. Pretty much a pretentious flavour of WP:MADEUP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:57, 22 July 2013 (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.