| Revision as of 21:28, 18 September 2005 editKmweber (talk | contribs)6,865 edits →[]← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:57, 6 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (17 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page. | |||
| <!-- | |||
| Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | |||
| The result of the debate was '''Delete''' <small>] <sup>] | ] | ]</sup> </small> ----- 06:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| This isn't complete gibberish, so I guess it can't be speedily deleted. It ought to go away, though, leaving no trace. ] 15:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC) | This isn't complete gibberish, so I guess it can't be speedily deleted. It ought to go away, though, leaving no trace. ] 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. ] 15:41, 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. ] 15:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete'''. "Does it exist?" I'd say . Unverifiable, probable hoax/joke article. |
*'''Delete'''. "Does it exist?" I'd say . Unverifiable, probable hoax/joke article. ]] 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 ]. ] 16:26, 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 ]. ] 16:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC) | ||
| *** If this "scientific theory" exists only on Misplaced Pages, then it is ] and should be deleted. |
*** If this "scientific theory" exists only on Misplaced Pages, then it is ] and should be deleted. ]] 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. < |
***** ] 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. ]] 21:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC) | ||
| ****** Unfortunately, the wrong policy came about through consensus; "consensus" is as flawed as the policies it creates. ] 21:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC) | ****** 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) | ||
| Line 16: | Line 23: | ||
| * '''Delete,''' per Kappa. --] 17:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC) | * '''Delete,''' per Kappa. --] 17:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''', per Kappa. ] | ] 18:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC) | *'''Delete''', per Kappa. ] | ] 18:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Strong Delete''' per Kappa. Ditto on Karmosin's comment, btw, I don't think anyone could have said it better than that. When the creator of a subject in question whines and moans about the process on here, it usually means that they have nothing to show that it's notable. ] 23:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' - effectively original research if only stated online on wikipedia; Google search gave no effective results .--] 00:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''', and sentence the writer to walking up the escalators in the Washington Metro. Those are some ''serious'' escalators... ] ] 03:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **... especially when the power is out. ] 07:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' - original research.] 11:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''', nonnotable even if not original research. I tend toward inclusionism but there must be a line somewhere. If this article were to survive, next would be an article on ] -- "a theory developed by James M. Lane, which states that some people want to put (or leave) inappropriate articles in Misplaced Pages." ] 00:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' per Kappa. (I commented just so I could write that:))—]] 04:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete'''. Bogus. ] 05:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div> | |||
Latest revision as of 17:57, 6 February 2023
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer ----- 06:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
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. android79 21:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- 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. android79 21:25, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Strong Delete per Kappa. Ditto on Karmosin's comment, btw, I don't think anyone could have said it better than that. When the creator of a subject in question whines and moans about the process on here, it usually means that they have nothing to show that it's notable. Karmafist 23:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - effectively original research if only stated online on wikipedia; Google search gave no effective results .--AYArktos 00:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, and sentence the writer to walking up the escalators in the Washington Metro. Those are some serious escalators... Meelar (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- ... especially when the power is out. Barno 07:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - original research.Vizjim 11:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, nonnotable even if not original research. I tend toward inclusionism but there must be a line somewhere. If this article were to survive, next would be an article on Extreme Inclusionism -- "a theory developed by James M. Lane, which states that some people want to put (or leave) inappropriate articles in Misplaced Pages." JamesMLane 00:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per Kappa. (I commented just so I could write that:))—encephalonεγκέφαλον 04:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Bogus. Jonathunder 05:21, 24 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.