User:Filll/AGF Challenge Ghost-Remove all the articles on CPP


 * 1) -- Naerii  02:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) If there are no reliable sources it is not notable. Although I disagree with that nonsense statement I just wrote. Zginder(talk) (Contrib) 02:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) WP:DUCK and WP:OR. Wikipedia is not a homepage for the fringe (or at least it shouldn't be). LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) * God, I wish. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 10:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Classic WP:FRINGE. Well, I hope so. Hang on, my phone is ringing.... Carcharoth (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Presuming there is a lack of reliable sources on the subject, I would choose this. Mango juice talk 03:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) There will generally be some sources in print, almost everything of this sort has some, no matter how stupid. And if there are only widespread NRS blogs, that still makes it a meme. DGG (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) No mainstream reliable sources = no article. If there's a magazine piece or something on the phenomenon, then at most a single, sourced article on the phenomenon itself, without the huge walled garden of every little unsourced "fact" of the matter in it. Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!) 07:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) if there are no mainstream reliable sources, there should be no article. Karanacs (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Agreed, this is a case of WP:FRINGE. Fram (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Per Confusing Manifestation. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) If CPP articles contained a healthy dose of "mainstream science", they wouldn't be CPP articles any more. This is what WP:FRINGE is for. - Dan (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE, without doubt. No sources = no article, just as ConMan said. GlassCobra 16:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) If there are no mainstream scientific studies, why do we have articles on them? AFD posthaste. sho  y  16:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Obvious choice.  RC-0722 247.5/ 1  00:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) If no mainstream scientific publication has even bothered to debunk the theory, then it doesn't have notability. They can come back when someone bothers to even notice.--AkselGerner (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) WP:FRINGE couldn't be clearer. To the fringe theories noticeboard! --Sfmammamia (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) WP:FRINGE, and no mainstream reliable sources, so it's all original research. Pfainuk talk 21:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) BirdKr (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) WP:FRINGE. Sceptre (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Can't add mainstream science because tying the pieces together yourself is OR. Can't make it NPOV because there are no balancing views. So there is no choice but to AfD it. Of course, like most fringe topics it will probably survive the AfD, but there you go. -- Fullstop (talk) 03:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Not WP:V. No WP:RS. Is WP:OR and WP:FRINGE. It's not encyclopedic or notable enough to remain. -- Shruti14 t c s 23:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Nominate for deletion on the basis of lack of notability and reliable sources on which to build articles. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Joelster (talk) 08:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Trishm (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC) There is more information on invisible pink unicorns.
 * 13) --Prosfilaes (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) ProD as nonsense; if contested, AfD.  Since it's non-notable it's dead in the water anyway. Bwrs (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Delete per no original research, no sources, etc. --Iamzork (talk) 03:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE, no-sources, and WP:NORFelixmeister (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Per above.  Pie is good   (Apple is the best)  23:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Good lord. OR. Delete and salt. --Logical Premise (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) That's hilarious, ghosts talking to you on the phone, remove.-- Giants27  T  C  20:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Ghosts talking to you on the phone? Funny, but not encyclopedia worth. Remove.  Ono pearls  (t/c) 06:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Sounds like bored 8th graders to me :) Allmightyduck &#xF8FF; What did I do wrong? 15:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) No scientific evidence and no reliable sources. It is common sense to delete the article. It sounds like bored people trying to scare others on Wikipedia as Wikipedia is seen as a legit source on the Internet Amandaaa99 (talk) 06:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Delete and throw creators it the loonybin. Yikes.  Eman 235 / talk  04:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)