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. Reliable sources have been produced resulting in a clear consensus to keep. Just Chilling (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Surautomatism[edit]

Surautomatism (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)

Unsourced. The one quote included in this stub article does not use the word "surautomatism". Seems to be a neologism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no sources MaskedSinger (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Cannot find any significant (or even less significant), reliable, and independent sources on this. Fails WP:GNG. William2001^(talk) 21:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC) Keep Looks like I made a mistake here. Thanks for letting me know. William2001^(talk) 17:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep On reading this it sounded like pseudo-intellectual bullshit to me, but it is sourceable pseudo-intellectual bullshit and those saying they couldn't find anything didn't look very hard. Book sources include The Language of Surrealism and Historical Dictionary of Surrealism. Both sources confirm that Luca and Trost are responsible for this (the latter has entries for both of them [1][2]) so the fact that the Luca and Trost quotation does not contain the word is not very significant. Having said all that, I wouldn't oppose a merge into surrealism if someone wants to take that on. I don't think there is ever going to be a great deal to say about this subject. SpinningSpark 11:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do the two sources you cite use the word? Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source I provided actually uses the term surautomatism.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the language is, well, "strange", but that "madness" is part of what "surrealism" was about, I think...

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: Why are you asking that question? Can you not follow the links I provided? And yes, they do use that word. The Historical Dictionary has it as a headword in an entry of a hundred words or so, and it is also used in the entries for "Trost, Dolfi" and "Entoptic Graphomania". The Language of Surrealism source says "They [Trost and Luca] termed their manic method surautomatism (Lucal and Trost 1945) or superautomatism (Trost 1945), and included examples of indecipherable writing, text produced so fast and with spasmodic muscle movements that the products could not be made out into conventional words." There is also some coverage in Sacred Surrealism, Dissidence and International Avant-Garde Prose, and it is listed as a surrealist technique in Architectural Draughtsmanship: From Analog to Digital Narratives. SpinningSpark 19:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest now that you have found those sources, you edit the article to make it clearer that the word is legitimate. Perhaps then other editors, myself included, might agree that the article should not be deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...and maybe you should have said in the first place that your problem was you wanted to see the sources in the article rather than get me to waste my time replying to you here. If you want to petulantly persist with delete knowing that sources exist, that is entirely up to you. You have no business demanding that I do something with the article. It is not my responsibility to fix the article any more than it is yours or any other editor. It does not become my responsibility just because I found some sources. If I choose to do anything at all, it won't be until this AFD is closed. I'm not going to work on something only to have it deleted. SpinningSpark 22:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is not a neologism, but an established though little-known term in arts. I've heard the German equivalent of it ("Surautomatismus") in arts courses in school many decades ago. The earliest source I could find is from 1945 already, and this might even be the source originally defining it (or at least being close to it). I have therefore added a reference to the text "Dialectique de la dialectique" by Gherasim Luca and Dolfi Trost stating (boldface by me):

"Poussant l'automatisme jusqu'à ses limites les plus concrètes et absurdes (le surautomatisme, le talisman-simulacre), objectivisant d'une manière ininterrompue le hasard et l'obligeant à renoncer à son caractère de rareté provenant de la découverte de l'objet trouvé (l'objet objectivement offert, la graphomanie entropique), nous écartons l'idée insupportable de ne pouvoir le capter toujours."

I think the article should be expanded, but if it cannot be kept the term should be redirected to "Dialectique de la dialectique".

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With the added refs I meanwhile clearly see WP:GNG fulfilled to establish notability. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Spinningspark and Matthiaspaul: Thanks for the info. However, I do not think that keep is the solution here per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Thoughts? Thanks. William2001^(talk) 19:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. Citing NOTDICTIONARY without any explanation of why this is a dictionary entry, well, you may as well cite WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Which of the four major criteria on NOTDICTIONARY do you believe this page fails? It is four sentences plus a lengthy quotation, which is more than a typical dictionary entry and certainly goes beyond a definition. Further, the article is clearly capable of expansion from the sources. SpinningSpark 19:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• See this for the back story of articles created by the same now-banned editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But that user wasn't blocked for creating articles about rare arts topics, or was he? I mean, nobody get's it right all the time, and the variant "soufflage" is in fact used by some (even some academics), so he might have known the technique under this name rather than "sifflage". We still have to further narrow down its first usage in order to sort out if Wikipedia introduced the spelling variant or not. If so, that would be sad, but for as long as it was not deliberately created (as a joke or hoax or whatever) we can't put the blame on a former user, but should put it more on our ignorant or lazy community not recognizing it in all those years. Actually, we than should thank that former user for creating an entry for it in the first place at all. I haven't checked for why that user was blocked and don't defend him, I just think that it isn't a drama. Let's fix it and be happy.

What is more annoying is the fact that so many arts terms were nominated for deletion recently that is is next to impossible to properly research them all in the given time frame, so it is very likely that some of them will slip through and be deleted even though they are notable - and articles about rare/obscure topics once deleted are seldomly recreated because experts about these topics are rare as well. At least I don't want Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia for mainstream topics only.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The sources SpinningSpark provided are fairly cut-and-dry. The argument that it needs to be fixed immediately to avoid deletion seems like textbook WP:IMPATIENT to me. I also found this journal article which discusses surautomatism on pp. 4–7. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 14:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good one. I have added (as raw refs for now) to the article what we found so far. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I personally would very much prefer to see the outcome of this discussion be that this article is kept. Although the article is undoubtedly beset with problems, my inclination is to have the sense that these certainly can be fixed. StewBrewer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep not a neologism. Reliable sources exist. Vexations (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article needs a lede rewrite to make the etymology clearer.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2019 (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.