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. Black Kite (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Mimics (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)

Original research and synth, and frankenstein based on three thin news/news blog entries[1][2][3] in German. It's a meme that somebody tried to start back in 2011, and it fizzled. A good reason not to run out and create a Wikipedia article every time a news reporter makes up a new term. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/question. Yes, original research and original synthesis, and apparently based on nothing more than a series of four photos misdescribed as an article, and a dead link (not at Wayback). The article is terrible (and the subject seems unremarkable). But couldn't something be derived from this and this? (Not, please, from Google's attempts at Englishing these, but instead straight from the original articles; by somebody who can read German well and is interested; I'm ruled out on both counts.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My sense is that this is one of those articles that was created in anticipation of more coverage. It was a mistake not to have deleted it the first time, generously hoping that the trend would spread. But that never happened and so these articles, one 500 words, the other 300, in whatever language, are all there is. This happens a lot with new companies that get some early buzz and then go out of business. So in the end the reason for deletion is in WP:Notability: No coverage "over a period of time".

  One of the two sources even says, "Perhaps the trend is still too young to become established as a new socio-cultural art phenomenon." When even one's paltry few sources are questioning the topic's significance, it shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with the above comments. Basically this movement, or genre, or whatever it is supposed to be, has not become significant enough for an article here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Insufficient independent sourcing and highly synthetic. This phenomenon needs to be discussed as such in reliable sources before we can have an article on it, rather than using Wikipedia as a platform for identifying and analyzing it. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. The majority of the article is OR and Synthesis (the film references are particularly eggregious), what remains hangs on sources which are (in two cases) the only articles written by the "correspondent" on those sites. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2012 (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.