Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portland Surrealist Group

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 02:46, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Portland Surrealist Group

Delete the reason is Non-Notable, also Vanity Page, article created by user 63.164.145.161 for self-promotion, no credible(or any real) reference sources even exist on subject Classicjupiter2 20:18, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• On what basis do you (seemingly) allege that 63.164.145.161 is part of this group? I haven't even seen this asserted. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:57, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Over 1,000 google hits, and likely listed in "retaliation" for listing of Keith Wigdor article here above. (Though I'm almost tempted to support blanket deletion of any and all mention of people, groups, and things associated with Surrealism since 1950, as that would no doubt do much to lessen the number of edit wars and hissy-fits on Wikipedia. <-- note: that comment is a joke, but not much of one.) -- Infrogmation 22:22, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • 1,000 google hits nets rather small in my opinion.I will research more before placing my vote.gmonkai.
  • A search for "Portland Surrealist Group" -wikipedia -encyclopedia -dictionary to filter out mirrors finds 177. Of those, only 43 are displayed (including at least one more mirror that I noticed). —Korath (Talk) 23:05, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Why did you exclude encyclopedia and dictionary from your search? --Daniel C. Boyer 19:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • To filter out the (many, many) mirrors that don't mention Wikipedia by name. —Korath (Talk) 19:28, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep named groups that have produced results, if the results can be described. Thus, delete all garage bands that haven't recorded. --Wetman 23:19, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just under the bar of notability, website promo. Megan1967 00:12, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advert. This is a group that i've never heard of in Portland before. And I've been here longer than they have. Tygar 03:44, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. DaveTheRed 19:16, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete,I cannot find anything on them from a literary critic or a literary review.gmonkai 20:45, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC).
  • As they have nothing to do with literature, this wouldn't be suprising. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:55, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Noted Dan. At the very bottom of the article page it states that this is a, "literature related article", and since you admit that this non-notable group has nothing to do with literature, all the more reason to delete this article.Classicjupiter2 19:15, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Deleted "literature-related" tag to tear down this straw man. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:38, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Dan, your, "straw man" statement and removal of tag does not hide the fact that your friends are extremely non-notable. Why didn't you remove the, "literature-related" tag when your friend's article was placed on here in the first place? Again,all the more reason to delete.Classicjupiter2 16:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Classicjupiter2, your saying this page is vanity is without any basis whatsoever. Why do you believe 63.164.145.161 to be a member of this group? Until you can give any justification, the article shouldn't even be on VfD. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Dan, why do you appear to be so worried over this article? How does this article being placed on VfD affect you? Why do you even care? Dan, please look at the facts. This is clearly a non-notable group, the article was created by an Anon who is a member of the group.
    • Again, what is your basis for this assertion? You have none. Therefore, this article should be removed from VfD until such time as an actual basis for listing it here is come up with. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • You have nothing to do with this group, so why do you care about the article being deleted? Would the real reason why you care so much is that these people are your friends and you are using Wikipedia as a soapbox and a cheap means of promotion to broadcast your statements and beliefs?Classicjupiter2 21:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not a question whether I care or not, and listing it on VfD is a solicitation to anyone who reads it to state whether they believe it should be deleted, in their view. Whether they care, how much they care, is irrelevant. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Dan, you just stated, "its not a question whether I care or not" so since you just made that statement then you should not be concerned with the article being VfD, unless these people are your friends as well as the Anon who created the article to promote this non-notable group. Dan, are these people your friends?Classicjupiter2 21:21, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable --Neigel von Teighen 20:47, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I am sorely tempted to vote "keep" just because of Classicjupiter2's badgering. Unfortunately, I can't find enough evidence that this group is yet significant enough that we can write a verifiable non-stub article. Reluctant delete. Rossami (talk) 01:07, 9 Mar 2005
• Delete - looks like a vanity article at Wikipedia supported by a vanity article at Portland Indymedia - David Gerard 15:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • Daniel!!! Do not remove the VfD tag!!!Classicjupiter2 17:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• My sincere apology to Daniel, it was user 65 that removed the VfD tag, and then later user 141.Classicjupiter2 20:41, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete despite Classicjupiter2's taking this all way too personally. Not notable, advert. --InShaneee 02:41, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: has anyone else checked User:Classicjupiter2's user contributions list? His/her very first act was to start posting surrealist articles on vfd, and Classicjupiter2 has made no further contributions beyond these vfd postings. Kim Bruning 01:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, Kim. My user contributions is public domain and most likely fellow Wikipedians are very much aware of my edits, VfD's, etc. I am contemplating creating an article on Henley's 222 Radio Circuit Design but I am having trouble with the research. Anyway, we need to stay on topic, here. Now, are you going to place your vote?Classicjupiter2 21:11, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like a vanity article (as defined by Wikipedia usage, not the OED). --Calton | Talk 00:48, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Postdlf 17:53, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.