Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seattle Surrealist Group

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 21:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seattle_Surrealist_Group

• Delete, Non-notable, article created by user:Daniel C. Boyer to promote non-notable group here on Wikipedia. The only references on this group is two blogs.Classicjupiter2 00:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete part of a huge wave of similar stuff, much of which was deleted long ago. 8 unique Google hits. It's worse than I thought, really... on closer inspection, it appaears that this group barely even exists. According to their blog, they have 5 members. Completely non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:14, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Though you have a point, or may have a point, with respect to your other arguments, your implication that the membership of the group per se has to do with its notability is questionable. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -GregAsche (talk) 01:29, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above Dlyons493 05:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN ≈ jossi ≈ 15:44, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and salt the earth: We've been through this before, and through this before, and through this before. It's a clubhouse, not a movement. Geogre 21:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't know what your point is as no one ever claimed that the Seattle Surrealist Group is a movement; clearly it is only part thereof. You are using a straw man. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nominator. Not a speedy as re-creation of previously deleted material... but apart from changes in the name of the city and the members, it is essentially similar to many others, all voted for deletion. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a total non-argument. There are obviously a number of possibilities: that all these groups are notable, that they are all non-notable, that some are notable and others are not. Making a judgment other than on each on its own merits or the lack thereof is improper. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, sigh; apparently WP policies are one of those bits of reality to which Boyer is trying to avoid conforming. Barno 00:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • To what WP policy does this not conform? I'd challenge you to name it. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This article was submitted 11 September of this year; I can't find any trace of this article previously having been submitted. If Boyer is resubmitting content that has been removed thru the usual process, I for one would like to see some evidence. If not, then let's try to be civil about his submissions, whether or not they belong here. -- llywrch 22:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • If you're referring to me, I said that it was "Not a speedy as re-creation of previously deleted material..." perhaps I should have put "not" in bold. I said it was, however, essentially similar to many others, all voted for deletion. Perhaps I should have put "similar" in bold. a) A number of articles that were similar to each other were all voted for deletion; b) therefore, a consensus exists that such articles should be deleted; c) this article is similar to those articles; d) therefore, this article should be deleted. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think that you can go as far as you do in "b". In my opinion the most that one can say is "it seems that a consensus exists that such articles should be deleted", but the way that Articles for deletion is currently done (and I would argue for keeping it this way) the consensuses are reached or not reached on individual articles, not vaguely-defined types of articles. In any case, there are some articles on surrealist groups which have been kept, which suggests in any case that you haven't adequately defined what you mean by "such articles". --Daniel C. Boyer 19:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Dpbsmith, I misunderstood. But it would help me (at least) in the future if you linked to this precedent. -- llywrch 19:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. -Sean Curtin 20:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Boyer's arguments. Reading this article, I was struck by the lack of any explanation of notability: in blunt English, this article fails to answer the question, "What have they done?" Have they held any exhibits, performances, published any works? Instead of citing examples of these (which would help convince me -- & hopefully others -- to vote to keep), Boyer responds with explaining his own interpretation of the rules, apparently arguing that if the rules do not forbid it then this article should be kept. Sorry, Boyer: that argument does not persuade me. -- llywrch 19:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I have argued no such thing. I have not said or argued the article should be kept, I have just argued that it should be judged on its own merits, not lumped together with others, and some other points about what people said. There is nothing to be sorry about as I never said that if "the rules do not forbid it then this article should be kept". --Daniel C. Boyer 23:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Daniel, please understand what is being asked of you here. It is very simple: Where we can find information on this group, in regards to publications, gallery exhibits, books, films, anything??? All you gave us was a blog. This really is a clubhouse that you are promoting here and it just gets weaker and weaker every time you challenge a delete vote. I would have supported this article if there was suitable material to go on, but as usual, this is all just promotion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to promote your friends and their websites and blogs. Daniel, please let me give you some good advice: When you create an article on contemporary surrealism, give us something solid to go on. For example: Nobody that is friends with you and an entity that is notable for their creative ouput. Really Daniel, when it comes to Surrealism as an organized movement, everything kind of goes downhill after 1969. Any university professor will tell you that. These friends of your in Seattle, Portland, Houston, Minnesota, Chicago, London, Leeds, etc. need to accomplish something more solid than cheap attempts at notability by getting their friend Daniel C. Boyer to promote them on Wikipedia. Daniel, with all due respect, you really are a great surrealist artist, yet, where do you find the time to create, lately?Classicjupiter2 01:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• Nobody in the Seattle Surrealist Group is "friends" with me; I've never met them and have had no contact with any of them whatsoever. I am aware that you have repeatedly defined "friends" to mean those who are my friends, some of my casual correspondents, and some of those who have no connexion to me whatsoever, but have not seen fit to justify this definition in any way whatsoever. Your implication that university professors know more about surrealism than surrealists is in my opinion a questionable position, but it's really a POV and nothing more. This POV could certainly be alluded to in any relevant article(s). The same goes for your opinion that "everything kind of goes downhill after 1969". There are many publications (you're certainly aware of some of these, such as Arsenal, Blue Feathers, &c. -- you may be critical of them, and my bet is, correct me if I'm wrong, you'll express such criticism in your response, but this is once again a POV), exhibitions (you are aware, aren't you, of the 1976 World Surrealist Exhibition?) and other manifestations of surrealism in this period, indeed numerically more than in the pre-1969 period, but any discussion of the quality of those manifestations is, again, POV. An expression of any of these POVs is, again, appropriate in any relevant article(s) so long as (at least in general) the holder(s) are identified. Gratified as I am by your concern about me and whether I am able to create, I am puzzled by its relevance to the article. My bet is that you will not answer any of my concerns here. I challenge you to do so. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Really Daniel, I will answer your, "challenge". First, in regards to Arsenal, that is just another publication that your friend Mr.Rosemont SELLS to us all. Remember, Arsenal comes with a pricetag and REVOLUTION has no price! As for that rag being a legit surrealist publication, that is open for debate. Granted, many of Rosemonts friends (like you) will defend it at all costs, because you all share in this scam on the marvelous. If you were so insistent on Arsenal being a real surrealist publication, then why not provide scans of all the issues and put it on the net. Oh, I forgot, according to, "The Surrealist Movement in the United States" website, it comes with a price. As for, "Blue Feathers", that is a total waste of anyone's time. IF I were to go into any musuem with that rag of Dale's and Barrett's, the security guards would throw me out. That is a clubhouse rag. You are promoting a clubhouse here on Wikipedia, Daniel. Lets really be surrealistically real in the surrealist sense. Daniel, you have not once spoken out about Pierre's lame essay. Comrade Richardson did, why not you???Classicjupiter2 03:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • You haven't even come close to addressing my point. You haven't addressed your bizarre and idiosyncratic (to say the least) definition of "friends" and after that it's just one (weak, in my opinion) POV after another. As I anticipated, you do exactly what I predicted, crticising the quality or aspects of the journals and publications rather than addressing my concerns. By your criteria no surrealist journal (La Revolution Surrealiste, La Surrealisme ASDLR &c.) has ever been authentically surrealist; they were all sold. But it is up to Wikipedians how much attention they will pay to what is in my opinion a thoroughly ridiculous charge. As for your theory that everything is either computerised or should be, and that "real publications" are not such unless they are digitized, it is hardly worth the rebuttal. There are things called libraries, they have things called books and journals, and if you don't feel like paying for a journal go to the library and read it or check it out. Another digital-centric (beyond bizarre, in my opinion) POV. And as for your making museum guards the arbiters of surrealism, if you were "surrealistically real" in any sense you would know better than that. It is exceedingly difficult to come to any other conclusion than that you are an anti-surrealist. Finally, the "lameness" of "Pierre's essay" is a POV, and one that has no discernible connexion whatsoever to this deletion discussion. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:57, 21 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.