Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Psychogeographical Association

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 of the debate was no consensus Proto||type 09:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] London Psychogeographical Association

Delete I considered ((db-group)) but decided against in light of the long history. What is this about? A fictional association? This would be downright funny if it wasn't so sad. CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This seems to be a fairly common term on Google, but I cannot decipher its true identity. It seems to be a widespread inside joke, with the humor being the plausibility of the name and ever-elusive true identity of the fictional association to outsiders. I could be completely wrong, but my web travels lead me to believe this. Perhaps if the term reaches a certain degree of prevalence, a true article could be created, but for now, kiss it goodbye. Adambiswanger1 05:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ande B 05:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I can see references reported from [1] Goal, British sports magazine, issue of August 1996, as an exhibitor at anarchist bookfair, Conway Hall, 1995 .They're referred to as non-existent but highly influential . Very line ball but the clincher is that they are claimed not to exist. - Peripitus 06:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  Non-existent does not imply non-notable; see Unicorn and Perfection. --Lambiam^Talk 13:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Deosn't seem to be notable. DarthVader 13:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn organisation. --Terence Ong 15:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• No idea. The french version of the article seems to say it was a real organization that became part of Situationist International, for your information. I don't know if that's right and this is a farce, or they're both wrong. The SI article here claims the same thing, though. Grandmasterka 01:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - lots on google and an entry is clearly needed - i agree the subject is very difficult to understand, but maybe we need to improve the entry rather than delete it! Paki.tv 16:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - lots of google entries and this is where Psychogeography originated. The dfact taht people find its "true identity to be problematic, shows an understanding i.e. see http://www.lutherblissett.net/archive/283_en.htmlhttp://www.lutherblissett.net/archive/283_en.html
• Keep They are a real situationist organisation in London - I've come across them offline. Secretlondon 12:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Article may need work but whatever the LPA is/isn't/is said to be, it's widely-enough referred to to merit an entry. Dogville 22:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Zaxem 01:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment for this article to survive, it MUST clearly explain what the LPA is. I would appreciate anyone familiar with it to do this. Adambiswanger1 01:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• OK, I tried -- please see redrafted article (rush morning job), which tries to explain why it's a difficult one to write. Dogville 07:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

{

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.