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 keep. (non-admin closure) Monty₈₄₅ 17:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Organic Surrealism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This is an unreferenced essay, an exercise in original research and synthesis, based on an editor's reading of Surrealism. There is no such thing as "organic surrealism," this is simply a term made up by said editor. For these reasons, the article should be deleted. RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 17:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• keep—actually, there is such a thing as organic surrealism. (sorry they're all snippet view, evidently art historians are touchy about drm.) there are hundreds more, and the fact that many of them mention the same group of artists, including miro and matta, make it seem doubtful that it's just a random confluence of the two words, but a recognized genre. finally, there are four sentences on the subject in EB online (in the surrealism article, i forgot to say before), in which it is called one of the two major poles of the surrealist movement, and said to be synonymous with emblematic surrealism and absolute surrealism. i agree that the article is crap, though. but there are plenty of sources available, so it ought to stay.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NEO Neologism. Appeared in a press release and a gallery opening announcement, but no reliable sources. --John Nagle (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • seriously?— did you even hit the book search link in the find sources template up there? here is the britannica online article on surrealism, which specifically discusses organic surrealism.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There are a variety of art books that identify organic surrealism as a form of surrealism. -- Whpq (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Changing my vote to Keep, after alf.laylah.wa.laylah's wholesale rewrite. I suggest this AfD be closed. Discussion on article talk page should commence as to further improvement. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 18:02, 8 October 2011 (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.