Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Surrealists Against the RNC

Non-encyclopedic, original research, inherently biased. Even if a real article could be made about this organization it would have to be a total rewrite, this essay would not make a good starting point. cohesion [[User_talk:Cohesion|&#9742;]] 09:07, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that it is "inherently biased"; why couldn't the article include views of proponents and opponents? --Daniel C. Boyer 17:56, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I sort of agree with you now, I don't think it's inherently biased anymore, but I don't think any of the existing material would be a good start for an article about this topic, although I do think an article about this topic could be created that would be neutral. Unsure about notability though. cohesion [[User_talk:Cohesion|&#9742;]] 18:12, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I am 100% agreed. I think the main problem was the content, though there is perhaps an argument to be made for non-notability of "Surrealists International."  --Daniel C. Boyer 23:10, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I vote for its deletion too. Katherine Shaw 09:10, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete for reasons given above. Oh, and for being source text, as well.  SWAdair | Talk  11:39, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Original research, propagation of an online political activity (amounting to political advertising), and source. Geogre 13:20, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete for good reasons given by others. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: source text, agenda promotion. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:07, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Remove source text, move other material to Surrealists International.  --Daniel C. Boyer 15:34, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I posted this article hoping it could be accepted to provide historical context for the 2004 RNC, as a record of surrealist opposition to it. I must admit I had a feeling it might not withstand VfD, and it looks like the consensus here is pretty solidly delete... Oh well. Are there objections to having a Surrealists International article that doesn't repro the text of the statement but still links to it?~leif @ 23:22, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I think this is the best way to proceed. --Daniel C. Boyer 23:25, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Are there objections to having a Surrealists International article ...? Yes. There's no evidence that the group that posted the statement is notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:41, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Electioneering, no useful content. Andrewa 15:45, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: there is a giraffe in my toaster. And the other reasons above. -- [[User:Bobdoe| Bob Doe ]] 15:49, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable political screed. It'd be WikiSource anyway if it was notable, but it's not; it's just an obscure (and incoherent) rant.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 17:08, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * It's interesting how people describe as "incoherent" something that is perfectly coherent, just with which they strongly disagree. This says more about the reader.  --Daniel C. Boyer 23:10, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * comment: If you think I "strongly disagree" with what they're saying (at least, what I'm pretty sure they're saying), you obviously don't know me very well. I'm no fan of Bush and strongly oppose the Iraq invasion. But this pamphlet frequently descends into near-gibberish: "Yet, in the 1947 tract Freedom is a Vietnamese Word (later republished in the pages of the anarchist newspaper Le Libertaire), surrealists in Paris singled out a specific French governmental cabinet’s newly-minted colonial war in southeast Asia: 'Surrealism can only be against a regime whose members stand together behind a blood-stained disgrace as though it represents a joyful awakening.'" Wha...?   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 16:44, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * It's plain as day. The "colonial war" that the cabinet "newly minted" was that in Vietnam, as the proximity of "Freedom is a Vietnamese Word" and Southeast Asia and the history at that time should make abundantly clear.  Understanding the surrealist criticism that the cabinet presented that war, a "blood-stained disgrace," as if it were a "joyful awakening" is a no-brainer.  The comparison drawn with the Iraq war, a "blood-stained disgrace," as if it were a triumph and a liberation, is a no-brainer to understand.  To describe this very clear passage as "near-gibberish" is mystifying to me.  --Daniel C. Boyer 13:30, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. What in the world is a Torturocracy? -Vina 20:47, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * A regime that frequently or pervasively employs torture as a means for achieving its ends. This is pretty self-evident.  --Daniel C. Boyer 23:10, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * err, no. an XYZcracy is a government by people belonging to the class XYZ.  Unless you are positing that Torturocracy is a government by torturers, I'm not sure what you are talking about here.
 * Obviously a torturocracy is a government by torturers, and I apologise for my lack of precision, but I think between that and my defintion is a distinction without a difference. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:01, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * But in any case, it's got nothing to do with the VfD, so I'll just let it go here. My vote stands, I agree with Gwalla. -Vina 03:16, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence that there even is such an organization, much less that it is notable.--Samuel J. Howard 00:52, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * and badger lettuce hair.--Samuel J. Howard 00:53, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a message board for partisan manifestos with no historical importance. Especially ones as puerile as this. Palladian 05:57, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article is obviously biased against parochial surrealists. Fire Star 06:25, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - Nothing more than bias vandalism. -- Crevaner 23:14, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * This article isn't vandalism, and where is the bias? There is bias shown in the statement, but is there bias in the article itself?  At any rate this is an argument for editing rather than deletion.  --Daniel C. Boyer 16:42, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, the group isn't remotely notable. -- Old Right 16:23, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)