Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arsenal Group

 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 delete. Joyous 01:00, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Arsenal Group
Group (actually called "Chicago Surrealist Group") is seldom verging on never called by this name. Article was created for the purpose of advancing POV on group, contains numerous POV statements and is, at any rate, quite incomplete. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:43, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep Referenced as such here and known by that name. If he wants to argue they are non-notable... Stirling Newberry 00:31, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The context is just a characterisation by Shattuck, a nickname, if you will, in that one particular reply. At the very most, should be a redirect to Chicago Surrealist Group or The Surrealist Movement in the United States, with information included in the article about Shattuck's description.  But I'd argue this would really be pushing a point.  --Daniel C. Boyer 17:03, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, not notable - less than 2 Google hits using "Arsenal Group" + "surrealism/surrealist" (That NY Books review mentions "Arsenal Group" only once in the form of a reply to the book review, not the review itself). POV. Megan1967 02:12, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. The Rosemonts themselves are barely notable enough, we don't need articles on details of their careers. JoaoRicardo 02:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I do believe there's some arguement on the Surrealism page with this user's edits concerning modern surrealism, including this group. Might be a spillover from that, but even if it wasn't, I'd still be voting delete. humblefool&reg; 04:01, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as self promotion. Wyss 23:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I've never met such complete nonsense. Members would never call it the "Arsenal Group," and Stirling Newberry is ver far from being a member.  --Daniel C. Boyer 19:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'll accept Daniel C. Boyer's argument that this is some sort of agenda promotion. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons already stated above. GRider\talk 22:30, 7 Feb 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.