Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poetic Terrorism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Poetic Terrorism[edit]

  • looks to be some poetry, not an encyclopdia entry Allthewhile 19:54, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 20:22, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • See Special:Contributions/EDGE. User:EDGE moved User:Jongarrettuk to Yellow mustard rabbit (the user talk page was moved also) and blanked the page, evidently in retaliation for listing him on WP:VIP. Yellow mustard rabbit was subsequently speedy deleted, destroying Jongarrettuk's homepage. Here, EDGE was trying the same thing with User:Jiang. (I can't see the history now, but Jiang's page was moved.) Delete now that Jiang's user page and talk page are safe and EDGE has been blocked. --Ardonik.talk()* 20:33, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: If he's blocked, keep him blocked. This, however, is primary source stuff, a manifesto. Geogre 21:04, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is either poetry or a manifesto. In either case, the content does not fit the criteria for an encyclopedic entry.

    In addition, taken as a manifesto, the article merely seems to advocate some mean-spirited pranks, apparently on the grounds that they are clever. Too bad. An article on the intellectual history of challenging performances (a la Ken Kesey, or, more cerebrally Shea/Willson) with commentary about the role of art in illuminating social conventions would have been quite interesting. --TuringTest 21:02, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Manifesto. Gwalla | Talk 21:11, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is a manifesto/poem by Hakim Bey, a mildly notable anarchist writer. The term itself is somewhat obscure, but I've definitely heard it used a fair bit in anarchist circles, and might be worthy of an article. RadicalSubversiv E 07:44, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Created by a vandal. RickK 00:43, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm over my vandal ways. Have you not seen my most recent contributions? There is no need to hold a grudge. I plan on being an administrator one day. Poetic Terrorism, as it now stands, is part of a "manifesto" by Hakim Bey (as above user has noted). I support the deletion of this page as it seems manifestos are not welcomed in this encyclopedia. Would Wikisource be a better host? Regardless, I think I will replace it with a decent write-up in the following weeks. Godbless. EDGE 06:13, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm pleased to say that you really have changed your ways for the better (how often does that happen around here?) but I still can't tell what Poetic Terrorism is supposed to be. A manifesto, as you say? A neologism with a few examples of what might be classified under it? A "how-to" for what the original writer felt was subversive and radical behavior? I honestly don't think this thing has a place in either the Wikipedia or Wikisource, but maybe there's something I'm leaving out? --Ardonik.talk()* 06:29, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
      • It seems there is precedence for discussing manifestos. I refer you to: The Hacker Manifesto and The Communist Manifesto. I'm sure I'm overlooking quite a few. I intend to add a write-up similar to The Hacker Manifesto for Poetic Terrorism. Does anyone object, or will this new article find itself on this page once again? As for what Poetic Terrorism is, I like to think of it as a form of artistic terrorism that hopes to shock and terrorize its audience out of its collective normality EDGE 06:39, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
        • comment: I, for one, would not be opposed to an article about the manifesto. Gwalla | Talk 16:32, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - I haven't read Hakim Bey in a while, but this sounds exactly like him. And quick search on Google confirms it. Hakim Bey is a very well known author in many subcultures, his "T.A.Z." is an underground classic. I'd keep this up. Although It'd be nice if it was at least linked to or from some other article. --Lifefeed 19:26, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Allthewhile 01:13, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)Obviously there is nothing wrong with an article about the manifesto, but this clearly isn't even close to encyclopedic. If anything it's a source document.
  • Delete: source text. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:46, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)