Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massurrealism

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 keep. Maxim_(talk) 12:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The swaying argument is that Ty rewrote into something that meets Wikipedia's requirements. Good job!

[edit] Massurrealism

Massurrealism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This very short article is written in the style of a promotional circular for a nonnotable art movement, not in the style of an encyclopædia article. It has no citations, and what it provides in the way of references, external links, etc., do not come from reliable, third-party publications. I prodded it, but the prod was removed with the argument that the article is well-referenced and in need of "careful cleanup", not deletion. With all due respect to the editor who made that statement, I do not feel that this can be cleaned up, as reliable sources simply cannot be found for the subject. The article also has conflict-of-interest problems, with editors involved in the "movement" editing the article, as well as articles about themselves. Delete as promotional material for an artistic movement of questionable notability.-RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete This is madness. Wikipedia is not a billboard.YVNP (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I don't really know where to start. This looks very like a promotional article, linking to websites which are more promotional than informative. Two potentially reliable sources are listed in the artcle: one from Arts and Antiques and one from Computer Artist; but these could be passing mentions rather than substantive reviews. They might not even exist. I can't find any other third-party sources even referring to the movement, let alone giving it the kind of attention a notable art movement ought to be receiving.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep after Ty rewrite.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• A comment first, then motion for a deletion : Funny thing of the mention of artists and self promotion; in all fairness the Surrealists and Dadaists were notorious for self promoting themselves, and probably came under the same scrutiny during their time as well. I did follow up on some of the resources and in further mulling around I found what Ethicoaestheticist also found, numerous other examples of people either writing / commenting about massurrealism (coming from those who identify with it), or mentioning it as part of their lexicon not all seemed to me to be of a self promotional interest. All sources cited and additional ones I have found I do think there is a certain amount of notability, however I do not think notability is the issue here. Given the nature of the topic as an art genre / direction / philosophy this is something I would assume would be discussed ex post facto. These particular artists are in the here-and-now but there is not yet enough history to warrant anything more than a stub, and their impact IMHO can really only be determined after the fact. Please understand that I can appreciate all artists efforts, I really do. But because of massurrealism being more in the moment, I think this article falls short of making the grade at Wikipedia, and I'm inclined to agree for deletion, respectfully. --TheNightRyder (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. If "notability is not the issue here", and the article provides sources (several magazine articles and a book) which appear to be reliable and substantial (the fact that they have the subject in the title suggests they are more than "passing mentions", as Ethicoaestheticist presumes), then I don't see that any valid reason for deletion has been given. Self-promotion and COI are reasons for cleanup, not for deletion; thus my original prod removal. Jfire (talk) 07:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. If TheNightRyder's research is correct then the conclusion is that the article should be kept, not deleted. Notability in the here-and-now is good enough. On the face of it, this is a valid and well-sourced stub. Unless someone wants to allege that the sources are actually hoaxes (a point I'm in no position to judge) then the article's a keeper (although it still needs work). AndyJones (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• "KEEP". Notable. Brunhilda (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Notability is the issue, and there is none. Beyond self-promotional websites, passing mentions in magazine articles, self-published books (which do not count toward notability), other Wikipedia articles (which are themselves promotional), etc., there are no citations for this "movement." With all due respect to TheNightRyder, who is a new user, I do not agree that there is notability in the "here and now." Unless and until the organization, the artists involved therewith, and their works have received attention in mainstream, respectable, third-party publications in the art world, they do not deserve an article. This is clear Wikipedia policy. We follow, we do not lead. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete self-promotional article, ask User:Touchon and User:Alankinguk. --Switch-to (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

— Switch-to (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Ty 03:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• The problem is not with the article. It is with the midwestern surrealists who do not know what surrealism is and who want to define it on Wiki[pedia, their only place where by number of votes they can define surrealism. You cannot change reality by votes and by bad thinking. By making bad articles and by voting away the truth or "fact," if you will, you only look like what you are. What do you think that is? Anyway, all of us in the intellectual community have pretty much abandoned all Wiki articles on surrealism as hopelessly controlled by non-notable and intellectually deficient cranks.Brunhilda (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Response. I fail to see how that opinion is relevant to the current discussion. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • That is just the problem, isn't it?Brunhilda (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The description in this nationmaster.com entry[1] helps focus what we have here, a "coined" word and therefor a neologism. As such it has to pass that guideline. A hand full of unreadable sources in what seem to be articles highlighting alternative terms published in equally alternative publications just doesn't cut it as reliable sources. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that the nationmaster.com entry is just a mirror of a previous revision of the Wikipedia article. Jfire (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Noted and used as an example, not a source. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Response :.

"With all due respect to TheNightRyder, who is a new user, I do not agree that there is notability in the "here and now." Unless and until the organization, the artists involved therewith, and their works have received attention in mainstream, respectable, third-party publications in the art world, they do not deserve an article." ---RepublicanJacobite

No disrespect felt RepublicanJacobite. The above what you stated is what makes this debate interesting. This begs the question: who is the art world? is it really fair to state that just because an artist / art group / genre does not have involvement with what are considered mainstream galleries and museums in the world then they do not deserve to be noted in some way? The other issue here is what qualifies as good third party reference in the virtual world? I think this for example would have to count as a more credible source: [2] since this is directly from the University's web server (PS - if you do not read Russian just scroll down to the English transcript) as opposed to all the other blogs and websites connected with massurrealism by individual posters in cyberspace. In the same argument, does not these posters opinions count as well? My position of deletion however, still stands because of the lack of enough content worth writing about to substantiate a good article at this point in time, especially if the article were to be cleaned up. --TheNightRyder (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment The link to the lecture is definitely worth reading. It is either a description of the humble origins of a notable art movement or a frank account of a made up art movement. In my view the latter, but I'm interested in what others make of it.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Response : Good question. I am inclined to believe the former. Came across an article from what I think could be considered third party: http://www.hatcityentertainment.com/ (Scroll down to where it says "Art Is Massive") a piece about co-founder artist Michael Morris. The difference here is that it comes from a more provincial source, as opposed to say a more mainstream site that the art world recognizes and respects. But then again do not provincial sources count? I'm only playing devil's advocate here. One could argue that the mainstream art world has its own Illuminati of a small select number of people who control who gets written about, who gets exhibited, which artists sells, etc. They are all connected to each other, and they all have their own agendas and method of 'hyping' people and projects. And if artists are not in with the "right bunch of fellows" in the mainstream art world, they're contribution goes unnoticed. In further looking I came across this [3] From Entertainment Wire in Miami - a Theater production that was described as massurrealism. --TheNightRyder (talk) 08:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, I tend to agree with JFire, re: notability. The term eleicits 4400 Google hits. Most are not self-promotional. The article can be made worthwhile with some more sourcing/attribution.Bjones (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Not sure if this is considered worthy enough as notable, massurrealism being listed here: http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Art_History/Periods_and_Movements/ This is not something that anyone can simply either place or request with Yahoo. --TheNightRyder (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I do not know what the process is by which an article, or a category of articles, gets listed on the Yahoo directory, but, as far as I am aware, that is not sufficient, in Wikipedia's terms, to prove notability. The point is, as i said above, that Wikipedia follows, we do not lead; what I mean by that is that we have articles on topics the notability of which has already been proven by substantial coverage in reputable venues. No one has indicated anything here, that I have seen, that proves that for Massurrealism. Look at the three articles that are listed on the Yahoo directory, two of which are self-promotional and one is a Geocities fansite. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• So you have either located and reviewed the five sources listed as references in the article and determined that they do not constitute substantial coverage, or are familiar with the sources and know that they are not reliable? Or are you presuming these things? Jfire (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact is none of us have seen these references (and I'm sure we've all looked). For all we know they could fully substantiate a claim to notability. Or, they could just be, well, made up. The cleanup to the article has improved it and it looks much less promotional. In its present state it looks fairly harmless, and might not have even been put up for AfD. But since it is here we have to apply some rigour. Given that in its former state it did look promotional, added to fact that no other reliable sources can be found, we have to assume that the movement is non-notable until some evidence can be presented to the contrary.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

They don't appear to be made up. This looks like it could be one of them. This shows that another exists (though the text is apparently not available online). Here's another. Jfire (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My question, then, would be: who publishes these magazines? Are the magazines themselves notable or are they little more than 'zines? Who is responsible for the website to which you linked? What is the importance or notability of the person or persons responsible? I have never heard of either of those magazines before, and I am fairly familiar with contemporary art and literature. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment : For the discussion, apparently an orthographic variant of massurrealism, spelled with only one "r" (e.g. massurealism) also produces other fan sites, online communities or discussions about massurrealism : [4]--TheNightRyder (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep. There are (at present) five independent references, three of which have the term in their title. Unless it can be shown that at least 4 of those publications are not independent of the artists who are considered Massurealists, notability is proven. Argyriou (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Article has been entirely rewritten. I've rewritten the article entirely with new sources, so anyone voicing an opinion above needs to have another look to confirm or change their position, which is about the earlier version of the article. I haven't used the references previously given, but they seem credible and if anyone can get hold of the texts, they would be a valuable addition. Ty 07:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per rewrite as in statement above. Ty 07:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per excellent rewrite work above. - Modernist (talk) 12:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I have to say this is the best version of the article to date, including good additional references on Ty´s efforts. --LAgurl (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep after rewrite. Johnbod (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete "Massurrealism" exists like Cecil Touchons book Happy Shopping: "Your search found no results" (LoC) and "No results match your search for isbn:0615182445" (WorldCat). This website catalog is the main source: [5] so forget about it. --Switch-to (talk) 12:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

— Switch-to (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Ty 03:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This article, despite its revamp, is still borderline delete. The references to it being an actual encyclopedic "thing" are some very thin unreliable sources, including a directory entry and an eBay reference. To much "people who are the subject defining themselves" and not enough "reliable experts defining the subject". This article is much stronger as a description of a neologism, and seems to be close having the required references as such. It may even be there, but hard for me to say since I can't read foreign language references. All and all this probably should be in Wikipedia since I, for one, would like to know what it is. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The directory entry is compiled by the University of Oxford and Manchester Metropolitan University. The "self definition" is a speech made at, and published by, Saint Petersburg State University. Ty 05:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Though the rewrite by Ty has certainly improved it, this remains an article about a neologism used by "people who are the subject defining themselves," as Bryn Mawr put it. As such, I would argue it still qualifies for deletion as a nonnotable neologism for a nonnotable so-called "art movement." ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That can be said of most art movements. The question is, can anybody else be interested enough to write about them (or buy them). Narrowly, I think the answer here is yes (as does FoBM it seems). Johnbod (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: In further digging I came across another web source from a university, located here: http://web.utk.edu/~bobannon/preparing/guides/chapter10/cjohnson_arts.xls University of Tennessee, Knoxville, it is a .xls file, but an html version exists here: [6] go up a few levels in the URL and it appears what I presume to be the source homepage: http://web.utk.edu/~bobannon/ --TheNightRyder (talk) 08:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep: At first, this looks like Wikipedia in a self-installed mouse trap. As long as there is little control on edits and deletes, it may be free, but no encyclopedia - for it is technically innocent, and only hopefully controlled by the mass of contributors, administrators, etc. - In this special case, we probable face freedom, claimed by an artist (or a group) and powered by Wikipedia. One of my teachers used to categorise things like this (already in the 1960s) to be ungehörig (that means, in-obedient as well as impossible to be owned by someone); he even mounted an exhibition of smells, in these days. - All in all, one could state that art concepts now include the facilities of Wikipedia, but there is absolutely no reason to exclude them (unless Wikipedia redefines its standards). It's Neo-Dada, okay, let's see what happens. rpd (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Have fun: An art movement with one artist. Who are James Seehafer, Alan King and Melanie Marie Kreuzhof? The "key figure among the Massurrealists" (Wikipedia), Cecil Touchon, "co-founded the International Post-Dogmatist Group (IPDG)". Never heard of, but their website links to "MASSURREALIST.COM" and "MASSURREALISM.COM". Tried to find Touchons "book" (Wikipedia) Happy Shopping - Massurrealist Spam Poetry. The result: "Your search found no results" (LoC) and "No results match your search for 'isbn:0615182445'" (WorldCat). --89-dot-247 (talk) 09:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

— 89-dot-247 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User's 5th edit. -- Ty 03:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep per Tyrenius' rewrite. It is weak as this appears to be a small thing, but it is (just) big enough to be notable I think. --John (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2008 (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.