Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pataphysical situation

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 this article was speedy deleted on 04:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) by Delirium (copyright infringement -- listed on VfD/copyvio over a week). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pataphysical situation

Speedy deleted as patent nonsense, but recreated. VfD to placate those who don't believe patent nonsense is just cause for speedy deletion. — Phil Welch 06:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete It isn't about anything. Indeed nonsense.Tobycat 06:43, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• Patent nonsense. Keep unless it's a copyvio (in which case Delete). I'd also like to point out that this article is listed on Wikipedia:Unusual articles: "These articles are valuable contributions to the encyclopedia, ...". —Ashley Y 09:57, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
• Keep this article about intentional patent nonsense. Better to start with an explanation than to jump right in though.... Kappa 17:56, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: why does it matter if the patent nonsense is intentional? As if the sundry vandals and trolls *aren't* intending to write patent nonsense? Wikipedia's patent nonsense policy doesn't have exceptions for postmodernism. Assuming the article is meaningful at least to those versed in "pataphysics", it is impossible for most people to edit and has an insoluble systematic bias. It's impossible to judge if the subject is notable or encyclopedic, if the language conforms to the neutral point of view, if the language is factual, and so forth. This is why we have different language Wikipedias, and given that pataphysical prose is "intended to be absurd and nonsensical" to most people fluent in English, then it's arguably not written in English at all. Prose not written in English doesn't belong on an English language Wikipedia unless it's translated into English. If, on the other hand, it's patent nonsense even to pataphysicists, it doesn't belong on any Wikipedia. The point should be made in the pataphysics article (if it isn't already) that nonsensical prose is a component thereof. — Phil Welch 23:11, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• Note that this isn't an article about intentional patent nonsense. As it says in Talk:London Institute of Pataphysics this is a copy of an essay (Pataphysics: A Religion in the Making) written by Asger Jorn in Situationist International magazine, with a one-sentence disclaimer added at the top. It was reverted as a copyright violation in London Institute of Pataphysics, but copied from there to this article by User:Harry Potter, who asserted that this text was not copyrighted, in the middle of a VFD debate in 2003. The article is available online, but the copyright for the whole site where it is found states that it is Copyleft 1996-2004. All materials on UbuWeb are being made available for noncommercial and educational use only. All rights belong to the author(s). The prevention of commercial use makes this text GFDL-incompatible. Copyvio. Uncle G 21:28, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
  • Now marked thusly. — Phil Welch 23:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Well played. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I might add that I never alleged that the article was "about" intentional patent nonsense. In fact, we have many articles about several surrealistic and other movements that engage in the creation of patent nonsense, including an article about Pataphysics itself. What is barred is actual patent nonsense, even if it's patent nonsense created in the style of a serious intellectual doctrine. The article under question qualifies. copyvio or not. Of course, the copyvio makes this largely a moot point. — Phil Welch 07:34, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete As the copyvio source notes, "Pataphysics: A Religion in the Making". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When the religion is made and has a significant number of adherents, maybe then it will be time for an article. --Xcali 01:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, copyvio. Megan1967 04:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete copyright violation. JamesBurns 11:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Sigh. I quite liked the article, and actually contributed to it, but if it's copyvio, it should go. NoahB 15:26, 30 May 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.