Polymash

Polymash is a term created by artist Chris Dooks in 2003 to describe his chaotic multi-disciplinary practice. As art has the object of enriching itself by whatsoever means possible, polymash may or may not describe any number of cross-genre explorations and happenings.

Whether polymash is to be adopted by Wikipedia or not remains to be seen, but it was damned as a 'non-notable neologism', which demonstrates the pettiness inherent in the Wiki-System, as follows:

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. — Jake Wartenberg 03:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Polymash

Template:La – (View log)

(Template:Findsources)

non-notable Neologism - Prod removed by anon editor noq (talk) 11:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NEO, WP:NAD and WP:NFT. Created by an SPA editor to support new article on Chris Dooks (and I'm not sure that one meets WP:CREATIVE). JohnCD (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Per JohnCD. Joe Chill (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This is new user MountOilphant, I am new to wikipedia but keen to see polymash remain, or come back with the correct protocol in place. Please advise how to do this, I've found wikipedia very difficult to use so far.

I'm afraid I cannot hold out any hope for this article, it violates too many of Wikipedia's policies. The reasons are well summarised in Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. I will reply in more detail on your talk page, but not for a day or two. JohnCD (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete I quite like the expression, but it's not for Wikipedia. If it spreads and gets used, then Wiktionary would be the place for it. Peridon (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I see no need for a redirect, so I am not recommending a merger, but most of the content here seems to belong at Chris Dooks. Cnilep (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Very obscure non-notable neologism. I agree with the above reason, that it might be worth a short mention at the Chris Dooks article, if it's not already there, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 17:11, 25 September 2009 (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.