Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Lettrist International (2nd nomination)

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 per overriding WP:V concerns. No reliable, third-party sources about this ... venture ... have been cited in either the article or the AfD; the numerous self-published pamphlets and the like are not reliable sources. Also, most of the article's content reads like patent nonsense. This may be the artistic point of whoever is behind this, but not of Wikipedia. Sandstein (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Lettrist International[edit]

Nonnotable organization with no verifiable third-party references. This was previously nominated for deletion, but the questionable result was a weak keep, leaning toward merge. However, the same problems still linger. There is simply no verifiable information to say this group even exists, and if it does, that it is of any relevance or importance. Once again, it should be deleted or merged with Stewart Home.-RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I previously added the references to the article and don't understand why they are not verifiable? John Eden (talk) 09:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Without any context, it's borderline WP:NONSENSE. I'm not even sure what context would make it make sense. WP:NOT at any rate. Ψν^Psi_nu 23:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's lack of sense-making is part of the point; see Lettrism and Talk:Lettrism and Situationism. However, an encyclopedia article shouldn't be written from that perspective, so if the organization exists and is notable, the article needs rewriting. (Query: If you don't understand the context, and haven't troubled to look it up, then why are you saying it's not notable? How on earth do you know?) --Lquilter (talk) 08:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. John Eden (talk) 09:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Well, now I see, sort of, now that the context HAS been provided by the two of you. So Lquilter's second sentence is accurate. Change my vote to Uh, whatever. Ψν^Psi_nu 11:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the WikiProject Philosophy/Anarchism Task Force "discussions" list. —Lquilter (talk) 08:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: All former AFD participants were notified about this discussion.-Lquilter (talk) 08:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like the reiterate my previous comment that the article should be merged with Lettrist International and not with Stewart Home.John Eden (talk) 09:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. This "new" organization shares very little in common with the "old" LI, and is more of a one-man nonsense operation typical of Home. Therefore, it should be merged to his page, if kept at all.
- As to the question about the "references" and the verifiability thereof, all of those references come from publications associated with the members of the "new" LI. There are no verifiable third-party sources to prove any of the claims. For all we know, all of those articles were written by Home himself. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer a merge with Stewart Home really. Just so long as something happens. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spoof, not an organization. --Soman (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant and notable. kindly refer to previous discussion for the arguments against the delete. --Buridan (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do explain, please, what is significant and notable about this organization? If this is so patently obvious, why has nothing been done to improve the article since the last AfD? It is now in the same sorry state it was then. And, please be assured, I read the previous discussion, and had I been the least bit swayed by the arguments raised, I would not have nominated the article for the current AfD. The onus is upon you to prove the so-called significance and notability, and to do so with verifiable information appearing in reputable third-party sources. I dare say that no such undertaking is possible or will be attempted. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - because AFD is not an improvement process. afd is only for deletion. if you want improvement, then improve it instead of deleting it. --Buridan (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wrong again, sir. I have seen a number of articles that were put nominated for AfD, discussion commenced, then the article in question was expanded and improved to the point that the AfD nomination was either withdrawn or a new consensus was reached to keep the article. That could have happened with this article, if anyone was interested enough to find reliable sources. The problem, in this case, is that no such sources exist, nor will they ever exist. This article simply cannot be improved or brought up to Wikipedia's standards because it is nonnotable, insignificant, and can only exists in the vaguest sense. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Whilst Re:Action was a publication by Home, three other organisations are cited:

Parasol Post (leaflet accompanying issue 3) [4]

Turbulent Times issue 6 [5]

Dreamtime is Upon Us! - The 2nd Annual Report of the Association of Autonomous Astronauts

These are all verifiable third party sources. User:RepublicanJacobite may be unacquainted with tghis material, but his speculation that Home was behind them all should be treated like the idea that Bacon wrote the works of Shakespeare. It is unfortuante that User:RepublicanJacobite is so adrift on this point, and tries to divert us with his idle speculation fuelled by a log holiday and his strange obsession with Stewart Home (unleess of course he is Stewart Home Sock puppet himself!Harrypotter (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Your accusation that I am a Home sockpuppet is so laughably absurd it does not merit response. As to the rest of what you've said here, I suggest you reread Wikipedia policy on verifiability and reliable sources, because those publications you mention are neither verifiable nor reliable. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that User:RepublicanJacobite found the suggestion they might be a sockpuppet of Stewart Home was a laughable absurdity as I am sure this will help them appreciate that this was just illustrating their suggestion that all the articles quoted were by Stewart Home. I had hoped that they would understand this as a reductio ad absurdum made in the festive spirit, rather to be regarded as some sort of accusation or accolade. As regards the remark about verifiabilitythis seems to cover the point. As these are referred as reliable evidence that these specific groups were involved with the New Lettrist International. Natrurally they can be verified if the querent goes to a good library (like the National Art library in the Victoria and Albert Museum and feast themselves on this material. I hope this helps User:RepublicanJacobite and others pondering this strange request for deletion, and helps sets the tone for a wonderful New Year in 2008, during which I would certainly like to see this article improved!Harrypotter (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - I am glad that your sense of humour is still in working order, Harry, but your grip on reality and your understanding of Wiki-policy is slipping. First, I've read the verifiability policy, but I suggest you reread it. The New York Times is a verifiable source, Harry, the Washington Post, the Daily Herald, the Guardian, these are all reliable sources. If you read the specific subsection to which you linked says that "self-published" sources should be used with caution. All this article has are self-published sources---not a single one has any kind of reputation for fact-checking or journalistic integrity. Are you actually suggesting that the average Wikipedia user go to the "National Art Library in the Victoria and Albert Museum" in order to check on the validity of a source they have seen in a Wikipedia article? Clearly, your sense of humour is in good order, but your sense of reality is lacking. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, and article has no reliable, third-party sources. Superm401 - Talk 02:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notability and sources are all there. They are as much identified with the London Psychogeographical Association, the Association of Autonomous Astronauts, Luther Blissett or indeed the 1st LI as they are to Stewart Home so they could equally be merged with those pages. So keep it separate. Paki.tv (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.