Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shyamalan Twist

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shyamalan Twist

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

Non-notable neologism. SummerPhD (talk) 02:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak (?) delete, unless someone comes with a solid RS base. I'd hate to see The Usual Suspects or The Forbidden Planet tagged with "shyamalanism". East of Borschov 02:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As far as I can see, there is no distinction between a 'Shyamalan Twist' and a 'twist ending'. This article could be merged and redirected, but as it is a neologism with no sources I can find, and the article contains little useful content, I don't see the point. --Korruski (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... or at most (if sourced) Redirect this to M. Night Shyamalan in a section describing Shyamalan's particular use of twist endings... as what he does now is his own version of what has been done long before Shyamalan ever made a film. Unlike User:Korruski, I was able to find the "Shyamalan Twist" neologism being used in sources as far back as 2001,[1] and even a book reference.[2] And while yes, the term is growing in usage,[3] that usage is topical. Had Shyamalan never made a film, that neologism would never exist and plot twists would stilll happen. That he uses twists is no more worth a seperate article than the far more notable film twists used by Alfred Hitchcock or John Huston. A twist is a twist. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as far as I can tell, this is a term made up by the article's author. He keeps adding it to articles that have nothing to do with Shyamalan, such as Troll 2 and Troll 3. GreenGlass^(talk) 02:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well no... it seems that the author did not make up the term, [4][5] as sources show the term in use even as far back as 2001. However, my concern is in its mis-application when twist ending is what a "Shyamalan Twist" actually is.... and we already have that aricle. Re-naming that established term after a more recent filmmalker than perhaps Hitchcock or Huston does not change its original meaning... and the author is simply adding disparate films whose endings fit the criteria he has defined... and that is OR. Perhaps the author might consider placing a sourced section at the M. Night Shyamalan article to descibe Shyamalan's own version of a twist ending, and we can redirect to there. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:24, 29 September 2010 (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.