Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Surrealism in the United States

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 keep. ugen64 23:39, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Advertising and Spam. Article was created by Anon,209.194.181.26 on July 5,2003 at 16.04.

"Surrealist Movement in the United States" is a website that operates as a bookseller, http://www.surrealistmovement-usa.org/pages/black.html Read and scroll down page to see all books for sale, they take checks too.

• • The Surrealist Movement in the United States is not a website, as you well know; it runs a website. It can hardly be a website as it goes back to 1966, long before the World Wide Web. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:35, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • kindly disagree, Daniel. Its the Chicago Surrealist Group that goes back to 1966. After 1978, their activities were very sporadic, too many gaps to substantiate credibility. Also, see Shattuck editorial from NY Times 1972 and his response to them.Classicjupiter2 16:25, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Article subject is also known as, "Black Swann".
  • This is a blatant lie, and is fooling no-one. Black Swan Press is associated with the Surrealist Movement in the United States, but is very clearly not the Surrealist Movement in the United States. You are posting these in bad faith. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:35, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Not from what I see. The fact is that its a commercial website that sells books. Also, sells one of your books, "The Octopus Frets" by Daniel C.Boyer. Again, Advertising and Spam.Classicjupiter2 16:25, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It's quite interesting what you're doing. First you assert "Article subject is also known as, 'Black Swann' [sic]". Then when I point out that obviously The Surrealist Movement in the United States and Black Swan Press are not the same thing, your support for your original assertion is the completely off-topic statement that "its" [sic] (what the "it" is is unspecified) "a commercial website that sells books".

• Dan, they are the same thing. Even look at the URL, http://www.surrealistmovement-usa.org/pages/black.html

It clearly shows that Black Swan and Surrealist Movement are on the same website that sells books, even your book.User:Classicjupiter2 18:37, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • It clearly shows that there is a webpage on the Surrealist Movement in the United States website for Black Swan Press, and fairly clearly shows that the two are associated. It is just as clear that there are many other pages on the website, and for someone to say that Black Swan Press doesn't have a webpage but is a website, that the Surrealist Movement in the United States is a website is totally bonkers. By the same argument, Coca-Cola is a website, the Vatican is a website, the White House is a website. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:05, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Black Swan Press "is" "a commercial website"? Then where do the books come from? The Surrealist Movement in the United States "is" "a commercial website"? This is practically mind-boggling. If what you mean to say is that The Surrealist Movement in the United States runs a website that is largely or entirely commercial in that it sells books, say it. Your "[n]ot from what I see" is either disingenuous or it reflects very dimly on your powers of observation and analysis. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:39, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• note, Black Swann Press also has article on Wikipedia as well.Classicjupiter2 16:25, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• See what Wikipedia is not. This is web promotion and advertising. Also, sells product by known Wikipedia user.Classicjupiter2 03:21, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I created articles (actually, one) as an Anon, too. If there's advertising and spam , it can be cleaned, our concern here is notability. While I'm far from an expert, a cursory search reveals published (print) works: Surrealist Subversions: Rants, Writings & Images by the Surrealist Movement in the United States (Amazon), The Forecast Is Hot!: Tracts & Other Collective Declarations of the Surrealist Movement in the United States 1966-1976 (Amazon), etc? (And to the author's credit, the last link is actually live! It reads: In work [,] the commodity-systems inner contradiction between use value and exchange value is endlessly repeated -- is this taken/paraphrased from the Grundrisse? It sounds familliar. Sorry, I digress. ) El_C 05:01, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Advertising and spam is the reason here EL_C. This commercial website sells books, many commercial websites that sell books are notable. The issue is advertising and spam.Classicjupiter2 16:25, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I just don't see how that bears on notability in this case, even if that is its predominant quality, still, the article can qualify it as such while excluding any actual advertising within the article space. It strikes me as notable, is all I'm saying, though, I remain open to the possibility that I overlooked important things and it ins't, in fact, notable. I will be pleased to review any evidence which refutes this (but if it's too lengthy, at the talk page, please). El_C 11:34, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, but drastically rework. The Surrealist Movement in the United States (possibly with small "m") is definitely worth writing an article about (and several of the writers in the book listed on this article at the moment should be dealt with in that article). The US basically kept surrealism alive during WWII, with the European movement moving wholesale to New York. But the current thrust of this article is completely wrong. Grutness|^hello? 05:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • As a member of the Surrealist Movement in the United States, I can assure you that your information on surrealism is completely inaccurate. There's no such thing as the "European movement"; there was surrealism in Japan as early as the late '20s. Moreover, if you'd read the article... --Daniel C. Boyer 14:30, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • My apologies. You are right; large numbers of art historians are wrong. Grutness|^hello? 05:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, promo. Megan1967 07:30, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per all my other Surrealist votes.. either advertisement, or lack of notability, or no article content except two statements and four times as many external links. Tygar 09:38, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as vanity. Radiant! 11:12, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up. --Ryan! | Talk 19:14, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep but radically rework. The Surrealist Movement in the United States, the Chicago Surrealist Group and other groups that have been mentioned herein are only an important part of "Surrealism in the United States"; mention also has to be made of exile period and other groups. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:11, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Topic is valid. Article needs work.--Gene_poole 00:44, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, yes this was thrown up stealthily as part of the wider spam attack, but there's an article here, watch out for the external links. Wyss 01:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite with gusto. --InShaneee 03:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Rewrite with NPOV and without reference to commercial or vanity interests. Links to external sites could go in External Links subsection at bottom, not in the body of the article. Arevich 18:03, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Valid article subject, invalid VfD nomination from sockpuppet. ~leif ☺ _HELO 22:31, Mar 21, 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.