Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biological art metal

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biological art metal

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It seems to be a term invented by someone with no real basis or historical examples. There are no google results of this term (not that that says anything) but it does seem like personal/original research. There is only one "source" and it may be restricted to just that one book where the term is mentioned Turn685 (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - the reference seems only to reference similar stuff a century ago. The term seems made up, though closely realistic animal forms, sometimes cast from the real thing, are found in various cultures & at various times, but not under this name. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OUTCOMES - we almost always delete new genres. Bearian (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2013 (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.