Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le Punching-Ball et la Vache à lait : La Critique universitaire nord-américaine face au Surréalisme
- 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 unknown. No consensus was reached. No log entry exists for any article with this name. This page was not linked to from any other page on the entirety of Wikipedia. It seems to have simply been forgotten. I am closing it now, in July 2022, some eighteen years after its creation.
This page is old enough to buy a pack of Camels.
Technically, it has still been open this whole time.
Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 08:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Archivist's note: This page was created in template space, as was the procedure for the VfD process of the time, on 31 March 2004. However, the editor experienced a MediaWiki technical issue due to the presence of ":" in the page title, and the discussion ended up taking place directly at Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion. When it closed on 7 April 2004, the result was copy-pasted onto the article's talk page, and this template was forgotten.
- In 2009, during the second AfD, an editor found this empty page (by which time had been moved into project space when the VfD system was changed into AfD), copy-pasted the discussion onto a subpage of the article's talk page, and transcluded it here. However, the AfD closed as delete, so when the article went away the subpage went with it, making this debate appear empty again. The subpage is now restored, attached here, and transcluded again, revealing the true result. — Hex • talk 18:20, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Keep.
- Le Punching-Ball et la Vache à lait : La Critique universitaire nord-américaine face au Surréalisme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Also, the five orphaned redirects to the article.
Stubby book review for a book not available in an English translation. The article is an orphan. UninvitedCompany 22:55, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- No vote, but a process comment. Something (maybe a character, maybe the length) is preventing me from getting this one to work in the MediaWiki space. Help. Rossami
- I believe that the presence of a ':' is the source of the difficulty. UninvitedCompany
- You are right. But as we can choose to name the MediaWiki page anything we like I've substituted a - instead and fixed the problem. theresa knott 09:09, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I believe that the presence of a ':' is the source of the difficulty. UninvitedCompany
- Delete. Not noteworthy --Alex S 03:33, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- It is noteworthy as it corrects pervasive misperceptions and outright lies about surrealism such as those that exist in, say, Wikipedia. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:23, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. We don't delete articles because they're stubs. We don't delete articles because they're orphans. We don't delete articles because they're about foreign language books. Saul Taylor 04:14, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. The book and author certainly exist. In fact the author sell numerous books both in france and in translation (tough not this one). I really see no reason this one should go. Unless, of course, the article is factually inacurate. Sander123 13:39, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. DJ Clayworth 15:49, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: insignificant. Delete redirects as well. Make an article for the book when it's well-known in the English-speaking world. Sounds like the author of the article has an axe to grind. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:22, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- And it certainly could be argued that those who repeatedly vote to delete any surrealist-related articles and to use various other methods to deemphasize the significance of surrealist-realted subjects have an axe to grind. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:20, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Would you care to name some of these straw men against whom you struggle so valiantly? What are these mysterious "other methods" ? Wile E. Heresiarch 18:58, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Among them is merging articles on surrealist techniques with so much significance and information that should be included about them that they clearly qualify as articles in their own right, into Surrealist techniques, ignoring objections about the treatment of surrealism on Wikipedia, facetiously claiming that surrealism is an artistic movement, claiming that facially significant people and subjects should be deleted as insignificant (when it even gets to the level that Penelope Rosemont and Franklin Rosemont are called insignificant surrealists it is really getting questionable, and so forth. Straw men? --Daniel C. Boyer 16:33, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, well, thanks for the info. I thought maybe you would name names. In any event, since I have no surrealist agenda, neither pro nor con, you must have been alluding to someone else. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:57, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Among them is merging articles on surrealist techniques with so much significance and information that should be included about them that they clearly qualify as articles in their own right, into Surrealist techniques, ignoring objections about the treatment of surrealism on Wikipedia, facetiously claiming that surrealism is an artistic movement, claiming that facially significant people and subjects should be deleted as insignificant (when it even gets to the level that Penelope Rosemont and Franklin Rosemont are called insignificant surrealists it is really getting questionable, and so forth. Straw men? --Daniel C. Boyer 16:33, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Would you care to name some of these straw men against whom you struggle so valiantly? What are these mysterious "other methods" ? Wile E. Heresiarch 18:58, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- And it certainly could be argued that those who repeatedly vote to delete any surrealist-related articles and to use various other methods to deemphasize the significance of surrealist-realted subjects have an axe to grind. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:20, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. There's no reason to delete the article because its about a foreign-language-only book. In fact, I'd say that's all the more reason to keep it. -Seth Mahoney 18:22, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- True enough, but since the entire point of the article, as expressed by its author above ("it corrects pervasive misperceptions and outright lies about surrealism") is to buttress a particular argument about surrealism, maybe it should just be on the list of references for some article. I believe that's how many unremarkable books appear in WP. FWIW. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:57, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- This is a disingenuous argument. It is the point of the book, not necessarily "the entire point of the article". Are you saying that any book which primarily expresses "a particular argument" has no place in Wikipedia as its own article? Or are you saying that because the particular argument is about surrealism that this book has no place? Perhaps you should be checking behind your ears for some straw beginning to sprout. I am not listing it as support for my (already overwhelmingly supported by every primary source, by the way) argument, I am listing it because of the book's own significance. --Daniel C. Boyer 13:58, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- True enough, but since the entire point of the article, as expressed by its author above ("it corrects pervasive misperceptions and outright lies about surrealism") is to buttress a particular argument about surrealism, maybe it should just be on the list of references for some article. I believe that's how many unremarkable books appear in WP. FWIW. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:57, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Perfectly valid article. Everyking 01:30, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - Tεxτurε 03:33, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Secretlondon 02:03, 2 Apr 2004 (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.