| Revision as of 21:25, 18 September 2005 editAndroid79 (talk | contribs)10,494 edits →[]: WP:DP← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:28, 18 September 2005 edit undoKmweber (talk | contribs)6,865 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| *** If this "scientific theory" exists only on Misplaced Pages, then it is ] and should be deleted. <font color="green">]</font><font color="purple">]</font> 18:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC) | *** If this "scientific theory" exists only on Misplaced Pages, then it is ] and should be deleted. <font color="green">]</font><font color="purple">]</font> 18:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC) | ||
| **** That it is "original research" is not a valid reason for deletion. The policy may claim otherwise, but the policy is wrong. ] 20:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC) | **** That it is "original research" is not a valid reason for deletion. The policy may claim otherwise, but the policy is wrong. ] 20:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC) | ||
| ***** ] explicitly lists original research as a reason for deletion. ] is one of Misplaced Pages's core policies. So are ] and ], which this article also fail miserably. I am dumbfounded at the continued defense of what is essentially a joke. If the "policy is wrong," feel free to attempt to change it through consensus. <font color="green"> |
***** ] explicitly lists original research as a reason for deletion. ] is one of Misplaced Pages's core policies. So are ] and ], which this article also fail miserably. I am dumbfounded at the continued defense of what is essentially a joke. If the "policy is wrong," feel free to attempt to change it through consensus. <font color="green"> | ||
| ****** Unfortunately, the wrong policy came about through consensus; "consensus" is as flawed as the policies it creates. ] 21:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ]</font><font color="purple">]</font> 21:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' - probable hoax; no Google hits ] 15:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' - probable hoax; no Google hits ] 15:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' - Nothing on google/ content doesn't make sense; This is probably a made up vanity page by the contributer (who also tried to add to ] and ]). --] 16:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' - Nothing on google/ content doesn't make sense; This is probably a made up vanity page by the contributer (who also tried to add to ] and ]). --] 16:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 21:28, 18 September 2005
Escalator Productivity
This isn't complete gibberish, so I guess it can't be speedily deleted. It ought to go away, though, leaving no trace. Pilatus 15:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - this is an encyclopedia; all bona fide information is appropriate, and the proper threshold for "notability" is "does it exist?". This topic meets both these criteria; therefore, it belongs here. Kurt Weber 15:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. "Does it exist?" I'd say no. Unverifiable, probable hoax/joke article. android79 15:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- It certainly does exist...all that has to be true for a theory to exist is for it to be stated somewhere--and it is at Escalator Productivity. Kurt Weber 16:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- If this "scientific theory" exists only on Misplaced Pages, then it is original research and should be deleted. android79 18:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- That it is "original research" is not a valid reason for deletion. The policy may claim otherwise, but the policy is wrong. Kurt Weber 20:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Deletion policy explicitly lists original research as a reason for deletion. No original research is one of Misplaced Pages's core policies. So are What Misplaced Pages is not and Verifiability, which this article also fail miserably. I am dumbfounded at the continued defense of what is essentially a joke. If the "policy is wrong," feel free to attempt to change it through consensus.
- Unfortunately, the wrong policy came about through consensus; "consensus" is as flawed as the policies it creates. Kurt Weber 21:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Deletion policy explicitly lists original research as a reason for deletion. No original research is one of Misplaced Pages's core policies. So are What Misplaced Pages is not and Verifiability, which this article also fail miserably. I am dumbfounded at the continued defense of what is essentially a joke. If the "policy is wrong," feel free to attempt to change it through consensus.
- That it is "original research" is not a valid reason for deletion. The policy may claim otherwise, but the policy is wrong. Kurt Weber 20:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- If this "scientific theory" exists only on Misplaced Pages, then it is original research and should be deleted. android79 18:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- It certainly does exist...all that has to be true for a theory to exist is for it to be stated somewhere--and it is at Escalator Productivity. Kurt Weber 16:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
android79 21:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - probable hoax; no Google hits JoJan 15:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - Nothing on google/ content doesn't make sense; This is probably a made up vanity page by the contributer (who also tried to add to Pace University and Trey Thomspon). --Howrealisreal 16:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, per WP:NOT wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Including any theory ever invented by anyone is indiscriminate. Kappa 16:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Well put, Kappa. / Peter 16:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. TheMadBaron 17:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, per Kappa. --Andy Janata 17:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, per Kappa. Thue | talk 18:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)