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 speedy keep. The article is linked from the Main Page; please wait until it's no longer there, should you decide that -- even after this brief discussion -- the AfD is still warranted. -- tariqabjotu 04:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hallucinatory realism[edit]

Hallucinatory realism (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)

"Hallucinatory realism", unlike magical realism, is not a genre. The two words have been combined in a few sources, but it's clear in all of them that "hallucinatory" is an adjective being used to modify "realism," not a statement that the writer, filmmaker, or visual artist creates in a genre of "hallucinatory realism," and that the occurrence is coincidental. As well, none of these sources define or discuss "hallucinatory realism"; being reviews or analyses of the works of specific individual artists, they merely discuss those artists. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article is thoroughly sourced and the topic appears to be notable. If the article were to claim that HR was a genre then we would have a problem, but it doesn't. Tigerboy1966  00:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's not a genre, on what basis do we have an article on it? As a neologism? Neologisms also require discussion (not simply attested use) in reliable sources in order to be notable, but this is simply a random phrase that happens to have been used to describe more than one author's way of writing realism. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a neologism- refs date back 30+ years. It's not an accidental collocation either- it's used as the (partial) title of two sources. Tigerboy1966  06:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge with either Mo Yan or Magic realism. There has been a good amount of discussion in the talk page and in its merge suggestion as to why it shouldn't even be an article. It has very little substance and was created right after the term "hallucinatory realism" was included in his Nobel citation. The term is simply a pair of words that describe his writing and it is not notable enough (e.g. Tear down this wall!, We will bury you) to merit itself as a phrase that hasn't just been quoted as part of the citation. 8ty3hree (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Couple thoughts:

• Though we assume this is the same as magical realism, we don't know - I suspect this term has more currency in Germanic critical studies of the 70s and 80s and may have a life separate from (though related to) magical realism. Why did the Nobel committee choose this term over magical realism? Is it another way of saying MR, or is it a form or type with more significance? We might need a German(ic) literary dictionary or expert.
• There is substantial sourcing already in the article and more could be found. It's a neologism but has been in use nearly 40 years (or more) and keeps re-appearing suggesting it will continue to be used in the future. This article given a chance could develop if the right knowledgeable person comes along.
• There is lots of room to expand the article. I wrote a summary of the Peter Weiss article but I think the other "examples" could similarly be expanded to show the various meanings and applications of the term in its evolution. This is more than dictionary definition.

--Green Cardamom (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You're proposing a new article that is based on a hypothetical term used in German literary criticism instead of the neologism or even adjective-noun pairing it makes itself out to be. In that case, why would the new subject suitable for inclusion if it is simply an obscure term? 8ty3hree (talk) 05:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm voting keep because the existing sources are strong. The sources are not hypothetical. One of the sources suggests the term is/was used in German literary criticism, actually shows it directly, though only one instance. So it would make sense to explore this. The Germans after all invented the idea of magical realism. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Then how come the same cannot be said for Descriptive landscape imagery, Galvanic imagery, or Dogmatic dystopian? They were all used in various critical reviews, "Descriptive landscape imagery" likewise used to title one. Perhaps Shelley created the idea of Descriptive landscape imagery, but how come it hasn't been discussed as a valid genre? 8ty3hree (talk) 03:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Magic realism. They are the same thing. See Talk:Magic realism#merge Hallucinatory realism. --Neo-Jay (talk) 03:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "They are the same thing" - cite? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, it's not a defined term, and there is no connection to magic realism. It's a misunderstanding that the Nobel motivation referred to a genre, it just described a personal style (which uses influences from Chinese classics rather than magic realism). Smetanahue (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: some instances of "adjective + realism" with more Internet hits than hallucinatory realism, these shouldn't have articles either:
  • ugly realism - 20,900
  • amazing realism - 17,400
  • uncanny realism - 17,000
  • stark realism - 15,700 Smetanahue (talk) 05:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably best to stick to what our sources say about hallucinatory realism. See WP:GHITS "a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't mean that hallucinatory realism has too few hits - quite the other way. I meant that the matches are incidential, the various things which have been described with that phrase lack any relevant connection - just like with the phrases listed above. If there indeed was a German movement with that label in the 70s, and if it was prominent enough and has enough coverage to warrant an article, then it would be extra important to remove all the other instances, since they clearly all belong in different contexts. Smetanahue (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, now all the world would like to know the meaning of hallucinatory realism. The actual state of the article gives an honest answer. This worldwide interest gives the article a chance to a further development as well. Karmela (talk) 10:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The world will probably assume, as most of us did, that it is the word "hallucinatory" in front of the word "realism" and that both of those words have their usual meaning. Please see WP:ITSINTERESTING. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The term seems to be introduced from Ingmar Bergman^[1] in the late 1940s, and used later as well^[2][3] Karmela (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of these sources use single-quotes such as 'hallucinatory realism' which is a way of signifying a pre-existing term or concept (ie. not the author's wording). (BTW I'm not sure the source shows Bergman introduced the term?) -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I interpret the text so, that the term was either of Bergman adopted, or even introduced of him. Karmela (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is definitely a keep moment because the public conversation about it has made the term sufficiently notable, that we can't ignore it. Unfortunately, that leads to another, probably insignificant, subdivision of genre... but that is a problem for scholars to confront, not us. Sadads (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for good sourcing, with no prejudice against later merging. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This should have been closed as speedy keep per WP:CSK#5. However, the link is now off the main page so the point is now moot. Still, I'm surprised no-one mentioned this. Modest Genius ^talk 20:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seems to be a contingent of editors who have developed the mistaken belief that hallucinatory realism is a figment of Peter Englund's imagination and that he must have concocted it over breakfast on Thursday morning. This article has shown since very early on that hallucinatory realism has been around since 1981 (this has since been improved to 1975), and has been applied to everyone from Peter Weiss to Peter Carey, aside from Mo Yan. It contains multiple reliable sources spread across five decades. --86.40.101.112 (talk) 21:26, 13 October 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.