Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cinematic masturbation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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 of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cinematic masturbation
Neologism, unverifiable, POV, nonsense Stlemur 15:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - neologism, always going to be POV. JPD (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - POV article, nothing more. (aeropagitica) 16:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as POV, neologism. -- Mithent 17:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, term does appear to be in use per Google, but with various meanings and by informal sources; plus WP:WINAD. Sandstein 17:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as pure POV and demonstrably incorrect. The term is used repeatedly in film reviews, and (being a neologism) the meaning varies with each reviewer. If and when a common meaning becomes clear, it would belong on Wiktionary, not here. Slowmover 17:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- No discussion of cinematic hairy palms or cinematic blindness? Delete as neologism and POV. --Elkman - (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Sandstein and Slowmover. Joe 18:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as neologism per Elkman... funny, but no evidence of use.--Isotope23 18:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per everyone. (No matter how true it may be, lol) --Icarus 20:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or Rewrite After doing some research with Google it seems that cinematic masturbation refers to movies made to please the file makers rather then an audience. It dose not have anything to do with unoriginality and far from referring to overly commercial films is usually used when describing art house type films. As this article stands it would need to be completely rewritten to be accurate. Seano1 03:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not written in encyclopedic form, and I thought MI2 was better than the first. --Pal5017 03:20, 22 March 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.
