Talk:Ruinism
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
This is badly formatted but that's not really important right now. I thought this was an obvious protologism but a simple Google search turned up a wider variety of results than I expected. So I wonder if this may be attested after all, even if not with the sense given. —CodeCat 00:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
According to professional photographer, Gabriel Biderman, the term ruinism, which he uses, is "the beauty of decay" (see ruinism.com/about). It is arguable that the definition I have provided uses the same definition, but talking of decay in an artificial sense. If it would help for the purpose of achieving a better definition, I could alter my definition to include natural decay as well as artificial decay. I believe this would, therefore, prove that my article can be verified by Wiktionary's terms.— This unsigned comment was added by 94.168.87.47 (talk) at 19:04, 15 June 2012.
- One use (or multiple dependent uses) isn't enough. That would make it a protologism. For WT:CFI it has to be in use by others, making it a neologism- which is proved by citations in at least 3 independent, durably-archived sources over more than a year Chuck Entz (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Most usage seems to be referring to something completely different, and in lowercase. I have created Citations:ruinism (I find the first citation to be extremely funny), but I haven't actually made ruinism yet because I don't know how to define it exactly. As for Ruinism, I can't find a single durable citation and I think it ought to be deleted rather soon. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 04:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)