Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cantabria Surrealist Group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Block compress error: pending deletion. Joyous 16:54, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cantabria Surrealist Group

  • Delete extremely non-notable Vanity Page article created by close friend (seem familiar?) Wikipedia user Daniel C.Boyer in June 2004. See also, advertising and spam, possible recommendation for speedy deletion as well. This, "surrealist group" only brings up 200 plus hits on Google, look at the second and third listings on your google search, Wikipedia encyclopedia mirrors. Article was created to use Wikipedia for self-promotion. Typical attempts by contemporary, "surrealist" groups having articles created on Wikipedia to exploit the benefits of exposure. Note: No significant cultural history on this group can be found anywhere.Classicjupiter2 05:33, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I am not a close friend of anyone in the Cantabria Group. This is an allegation without any other basis than Classicjupiter2's anti-surrealism; if I am missing something, please let me know. Furthermore, why is "surrealist" in quotes -- on what basis have you decided this is not a surrealist group? --Daniel C. Boyer 19:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: 117 google hit for "Cantabria Surrealist Group"; without word "Wikipedia", 86 hits. -- Infrogmation 05:38, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, speedily so as vandalism. Wyss 05:53, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't put it in the category of vandalism; if there's a problem it seems to me to be overly generous inclusiveness. I'm seeing a need for Wikipedia guidelines for notability in art related article similar to the music notability guidelines project. Pondering, -- Infrogmation 06:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I (amicably) disagree, it's pure bad-faith vandalism, these are hoax articles meant as platforms for self-promotion over a period of time... throw up a few dozen and maybe a few will stick, then seed them with links and names and poof... worldwide notability via mirrored WP. Speedy delete 'em. Wyss 10:38, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
On what basis is it self-promotion -- why do you believe a member of the Cantabria Surrealist Group created this? Or have you decided to strip the adjective self-promotion of all meaning by using it in a very vague way synonymous with non-notability, which is a very different thing? On what basis do you think the Cantabria Surrealist Group is a hoax? Let me guess, you won't answer one of these questions. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You guessed wrong. Now, I never said the article was created by a member of that group, or that it wasn't notable. I said that it (in combination with the flurry of other surrealist articles) is a hoax, a stealth platform for ads. Please feel free to do whatever self-promotion you can, that's part of being an active surrealist and that's ok (Dali did it, after all), but not here please, since WP is not a promotional resource. Wyss 05:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's becoming increasingly clear that you don't know what the word "hoax" means -- or do you really think the Cantabria Surrealist Group has no existence outside of the Wikipedia article and was created for the purpose of playing a practical joke on Wikipedia readers, or some other ulterior motive inclusive of the nonexistence of the group? Give me a break. Could you stop with these idiosyncratic attempts to strip words of meaning. Oh, and the period of Dali's greatest self-promotion was after he and surrealism parted ways, and is certainly not characteristic of surrealism. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 06:12, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • We have at least one of these non-articles listed at VfD every day. This looks to be stark vanity, spam, and vandalization of Wikipedia. Speedy deletion!!! Tygar 09:05, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: While, so far, I have listed each VfD surrealist article for deletion it is due to the fact that they 1) do not establish notability other than stating that they exist 2) give a very brief idea of where they are located and who their founders are and 3) provide you external links and nothing more, even though a few have been listed as stubs for several months. If we find one that is in the process of development, or, contains more than 1), 2), and 3), it will then be a different story. But, based on the pattern of blitz-submission of ongoing surrealist articles, I stand by my speedy delete vote for the majority of these articles that come to VfD. Tygar 09:18, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • Nothing more than a stark admission of anti-surrealist POV. Every article should be considered on its own merits, not as to whether it is part of a pattern. Clearly some of these groups could be notable and others not, none of them could be notable, or they all could be notable, but the notability of one should not be artificially linked to whether the existence of other articles is justified. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • In the case of articles that are primarily the work of a single contributor, the nature of the past articles submitted by the contributor is relevant. For example, if an article is proved to be an actual hoax, other contributions from the same account will probably be deleted with only cursory due diligence. Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion is always available to correct any mistakes.
  • Comment I'll speedy it. But continue to list on VfD. It is better to have a discussion to refer to, as this is identifiable as vandalism only in the context of a pattern of articles, not by itself. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:07, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) Damn, can't be deleted for technical reasons. Blanked and protected in lieu of deletion. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:28, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, vanity, not surreal enough. -- Cleduc 04:34, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Keep Deleted whichever the case happens to be Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:52, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm now going to irritate everyone by vacillating. I've been brooding about this and have concluded that on the basis of Classicjupiter2's description and an inspection of Daniel C. Boyer's recent edits, the surrealist-related articles don't really rise to the level of vandalism. It's not as if they were being rapidly created in defiance of consensus, or anything like that. So I've decided to unprotect and revert the article and let VfD run its course. This doesn't mean I think the article should be kept, just that I think I was needlessly precipitous. Sorry. The article has now been restored. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:22, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, for good reasons give by others above. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:22, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It hasn't even declared itself a sovereign nation or issued stamps, yet. - Nunh-huh 01:27, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. Postdlf 03:58, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, I do see these "Surrealist Group" articles as vandalism (never mind if they've slipped through the cracks for awhile or if the odd one now and then happens to describe an existing group), and also noticed (when I checked it the other day) that Daniel C. Boyer's user contribution history doesn't follow the usual pattern for such activity. Nevertheless, although Daniel C. Boyer's user page does provide some evidence that he is a practicing surrealist, which might account for his enthusiam in voting to keep apparently dodgy articles in his area of interest (where self-promotion abounds), readers are invited to read his posts on my talk page and decide for themselves what they mean. Wyss 04:28, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I should say, if I happen to think something could be speedied (for example an article stub about a group of surrealists that doesn't seem to exist), but for whatever reason it's allowed to go through VfD, that's ok by me. Wyss 04:33, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Oh my! What do the, "surrealists" friends of Daniel C.Boyer really think about Wikipedia? Plus the real reason on how to promote online by, "surrealist" ewbragg, friend of Daniel C.Boyer (read the post on how he tells the other, "surrealists" how to promote online! Go here, http://p217.ezboard.com/fsurrealismfrm2.showMessage?topicID=51.topic

it all makes sense.Classicjupiter2 06:04, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm shocked... shocked... to see this blatant evidence of self-promotion by surrealists! (grin) More power to 'em, truth be told, 'cause surrealism can blow out the cobwebs now and again. Dali (to use an example everyone's heard of) had loads of talent in addition to being a shameless self-promoter and huckster. I'm not too keen on the ol' melting watch motif, but he did a couple of things in the late 40s ([1] [2]) that I actually like. Whatever talent these guys have isn't the pith of it, though. WP's not for self-promotion, or advertising, or auto-bios, or stealth spam. Funny thing is, if they put some of this same energy into getting some real-world exhibitions, performance art, local press coverage or whatever, I'll bet they could weasel into WP by the rules (heh heh). Wyss 06:13, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Read the Manifesto of Surrealism to see what Breton and surrealism thinks about "talent" ("Forget about your genius, your talents, and the talents of everyone else"). Notice that Dali and surrealism parted ways. Note also that surrealism is not an artistic movement. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Wyss's talk page will show Daniel's inability to prove anything factual concerning this matter. One of the best books recently written on Surrealism was by Kristen Strom, called, "Making History" (it came out around 2002) and it focuses mainly on the surrealist groups of the 20's and 30's. It shows you the pictures, writings, etc., etc., of group members together and seperate, but what I am getting at is, you have facts right in front of you, that prove that there were active surrealist groups. Upon researching surrealism from its beginnings up to now (2005), one needs to ask oneself, why so very little material on contemporary surrealists that can be easily validated, especially in this day and age of Real-Time Internet, Media, etc., etc., and all the reference material that you can get on the current, "surrealist" groups is mainly an article on Wikipedia, with two to four sentences.
    • You are at it again, with the "Real-Time Internet" [sic] &c. You do realise that books, newspapers, magazines still exist, right? Why are you continuing to duck the question of why you discount them? What about the fact that at least one of the "surrealist groups of the 20's and 30's" (you give no reason whatsoever as to why you have picked these decades out of a hat) -- The Czech Group -- continues to exist today and has had an uninterrupted history since that time? Not that I agree with your characterisation; what you are mainly doing is excluding reference sources that go against you, based on a variety of ever-shifting excuses. Oh, I know, "too many gaps to establish credibility". --Daniel C. Boyer 15:57, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Wyss hit it right on the mark, as did a few others. These, "surrealists" and "surrealist" groups today say they exist. OK, lets take their word for it for a moment.
    • Who are the "they" if they do not exist? --Daniel C. Boyer 15:57, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Then why is there practically next to zilch online that the public can research regarding their: Exhibits, Documented Group Activity (in newspapers and any press. Breton and co. used to get tons of press back in the day, from the 20's up until the 60's) Protests, etc.,etc., etc.
    • And the Chicago Surrealist Group, e.g. has gotten tons of press in The New Yorker, in the Chicago Tribune, the 1976 World Surrealist Exhibition in Art News &c. Oh, but these are not legitimate sources because they are not online. And in this era of the "Real-Time Internet" (whatever that is, that's all that counts. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:57, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Granted you have a menu of Geocities websites, self-made do-it-yourself websites like the bogus, "surrealcoconut" (that Boyer is also on) and PLENTY of Wikipedia articles, no less, that tell you that contemporary surrealism is an active movement, but why is there so much protest from their main promoter here on Wikipedia, Daniel C. Boyer? The reason is clear: Your exposure to the public is very rewarding if you have an article on Wikipedia, where it can be mirrored, replicated and placed on practically every single encyclopedia website on the net. Thus, you exist!!! This is a Hoax.Classicjupiter2 07:06, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • You're not sure what the word "hoax" means, are you? Are you saying that there's no such person as "Daniel C. Boyer"? Then why are you so concerned about him? Classicjupiter2, ask yourself why you are so upset about this? It should be none of your concern, let it go, &c. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:57, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Daniel, as for The Chicago Surrealist Group, you or somebody should provide the references and sources that you keep on mentioning. Then I will change my vote on that article. As for all the other articles, you better explain why you are using the Wikipedia service to promote your friends. You still provide no evidence. Your friend, Eric W.Bragg's statement on how to promote your surrealism online certainly proves that your assertions on an active surrealist movement is a hoax. "...no need to rely on Wikipedia then". Busted!Classicjupiter2 17:37, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am hardly "busted" because of this latest entry in your pattern of mischaracterisations which it is difficult to see as other than deliberate. Bragg is essentially saying that one cannot count on Wikipedia articles to accurately discuss surrealism. Saying that his statements prove that "an active surrealist movement is a hoax" is such a reach (it might be a hoax, it might not be a hoax, but clearly his statement wouldn't control that) is hardly worth discussing. You are certainly aware of Arsenal, Surrealist Subversions, WHAT Are You Going to Do About It?, S. U. RR., Anologon, the World Surrealist Exhibition, "Totems Without Taboos", &c., &c., yet if my guess is correct you will find some reason that all of these are fraudulent. This, however, will be nothing more than a (novel) POV, a POV to be discussed in the relevant article(s) but certainly not a basis for deletion. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:27, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What denial! I am not going to argue surrealism here with you Daniel. This is an open source encyclopedia that is based on the presentation of facts in the articles on here. You are busted. Eric W.Bragg's statement proves it, and that is just one piece of evidence. You had every opportunity to provide your evidence to back up your articles and the votes prove that they are a hoax. Granted, I will recognize the Chicago Surrealist Group as a group, but I see the obvious (again I really do not want to argue here), that it is a group of artists and poets that allege to be the chosen representatives of Surrealism. Mr.Rosemont (and his wife) both have built their artistic careers on the notion that they met Andre Breton, and if I was an historian, I would have much difficulty in believing them that they had direct contact with him. Granted, I believe that they went to Paris and that they attended an exhibition while Breton may have been present, but the "facts", presented in Rosemont's account is very vague and too many obvious gaps. Dan, if you were a role model of mine, (and if you were the greatest influence on me and my beliefs), and if we were writing letters to each other for 3 years, then I get the chance to meet my role model and hero(you), I certainly would document that in a picture for history no less.

Notice how Rosemont's reputation in the art world is only limited to Chicago, or am I wrong again? You love pointing out that I am wrong, but I see the obvious. Anyway, forget Rosemont and his group for the moment, the issue here is the promotion of your friend's groups and that is being examined here on this VfD by fellow Wikipedians. Why do I have to go through all the trouble to verify your articles? Why does it take a VfD to ,(all of a sudden), get you to start coming up with such informative answers that are still vague and really baseless? Dan, you keep on shifting the examination here? If you are going to promote your friends on here, at least give us something more than two to four sentences and practically next to nothing on a topic that is going to be mentioned in an encyclopedia no less! Dan, have you really read the feedback posted by the fellow Wikipeidans?

As for the Chicago Group, I will change my vote on the exception that I recognize them as a commercial outlet for retrospective surrealism from 1967 to 2003. Dan, have you noticed when the last time that Chicago upgraded their website? Anyway, the other articles are a hoax. These are your friends that only do all this as a platform for exposure. Look at your friends forum.Classicjupiter2 21:38, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dan, pictures are very helpful for researchers. I recommend that you get a hold of pictures(fast) of these people to try to save your articles, just to at least prove that they exist.Classicjupiter2 21:38, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment Presently, I am more concerned about the unsourced statement, added by Daniel C. Boyer, that a cantaloupe can be a charge in heraldry. I'd like to think this is an obscure but interesting fact about modern heraldry (the cantaloupe not being known in the middle ages) but I'd be much happier if this were sourced. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:41, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Appears in arms of Santo Estêvão in Portugal. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:41, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Please continue discussion in Talk:Charge (herald). This site identifies the melon-like objects on the arms of Santo Estêvão as "gold rocks." Dpbsmith (talk) 00:04, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It isn't proven to be active and significant. All the Google hits for "Cantabria Surrealist Group" have something to do with Wikipedia, expect a paragraph in Surrealcoconut. "Grupo Surrealista de Cantabria" gives 44 hits. -Hapsiainen 14:51, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. Radiant_* 10:24, Mar 18, 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.