Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surrealist groups

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. --Coredesat 04:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Surrealist groups

Surrealist groups (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Not an article, but a list. The external links section is a link farm, and there are concerns about the notability of some of the groups with Wikipedia articles. The article is getting edit warring by rival artists, if you can believe that. (I know, edit warring is not a valid rationale for deletion.) Whatever useful purpose this article/list serves can be accomplished by creating Category:Surrealist groups. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete I agree 100% with --Akhilleus. The article serves no purpose except as a link farm and an opportunity for Eric W.Bragg, who is Wikipedia user TEXTURE SAVANT to promote his friends in surrealist groups that are non-notable and whose articles were already voted for deletion by an overwhelming consensus of the Wikipedia community. I do not want to engage in an edit war with Eric W.Bragg, (TEXTURE SAVANT), he has his own website, SURREALCOCONUT.COM to promote his friends. Wikipedia is NOT the place for online promotion. These are blogs, not notable groups, just more promotion. Delete.Madsurrealist 16:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC) — Madsurrealist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .
  • Delete If a new article is created Category:Surrealist groups with these important links, then I am okay with deleting the present article. Akhilleus, if you bother to check these links, you will learn that they are to valid websites for current surrealist groups. Not a linkfarm.

Let it be known that this user Madsurrealist is really another sockpuppet of Keith Wigdor, who was also busted recently for having a multitude of sockpuppets a few months ago (Classicjupiter2) Here is the proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Classicjupiter2

Madsurrealist/Classicjupiter2/Keith Wigdor has fought all along for the removal of these groups just because he couldn't have his own vanity article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Keith_Wigdor

IF KEITH WIGDOR CAN'T HAVE HIS OWN NAME AND WEBSITE MENTIONED IN WIKIPEDIA, THEN NOBODY ELSE CAN EITHER. Such is Wigdor's infantile mindset.

Therefore, Keith Wigdor's motive is entirely self-serving and nothing but a case of sour grapes.--TextureSavant 17:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Please discuss the merits of this article, not the motivations of the person nominating it. It will be up to those who participate in this discussion to decide whether the article merits retention. Making personal attacks just damages your cause. Explain why the article meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Corvus cornix 21:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete An article about surrealist groups might have at least a fighting chance, but one that's just a list of external links? No way. Covered in WP:NOT a web guide. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I clicked on some of the links and they don't even work. Some sites have been removed offline.Madsurrealist 01:10, 2 July 2007 (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.