Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAGS


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

CAGS
Article states: ''This article is based on the theories and speculations of two university students in California. If this article has offended you in any way, go get a sense of humor''. Delete as unverifiable. - Mgm|(talk) 10:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Articles that claim to be OR and/or jokes, ought to be able to be speedied. JPD 11:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, speedy if possible although I don't think it qualifies for G1. If nothing else, No original research. Stifle 11:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Attack page. It is apparent that this article was written about a specific person, although it is thinly veiled as a “syndrome” and the subject is not named. &bull;DanMS 17:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to uncyclopedia. Voyager640 18:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete with prejudice (and I never use that phrase). If it's not speediable as an attack page against one person, well, it obviously attacks a group of people. Jacqui ★ 15:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Sarah Ewart 02:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Liberty should be given to theories (even Einstein had a few). This could only offend someone who is looking to be offended.
 * Note:The above Keep vote contributed by User:66.122.245.126. -Rholton 05:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * KeepI've known a lot of Asian girls (many of them crazy), and this is only comprehensive theory on the subject that really makes sense.
 * Note:The above Keep vote contributed by User:204.210.24.61. -Rholton 05:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, by the way, Delete. -Rholton 05:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Patent nonsense. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 09:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep i was under the impression that all people are entitled to freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of press (such as stated in a little document called the Bill of Rights). Although a theory it is still their right to post it and explore it. There was once a man who had a theory and was censored and put under house arrest b/c it offended some, you may have heard of him his name was GALILEO!
 * The above unsigned post contributed by User:70.187.149.151. -Rholton 19:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * KEEP: Being a Caucasian female who has experience first hand with friends that are Asian American women who have developed CAGS, as well as white male friends whose girlfriends have developed CAGS, I believe that this is legitimately posted and should be further researched.
 * The above unsigned post contributed by User:128.195.103.179. -Rholton 19:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. The Internet isn't American.  Little kids should be sleeping.  Danny Lilithborne 01:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes but Wikipedia is and as such is subject to U.S. laws as well as international ones. Hence, guarenteed 1st amendment rights. Old men should stay in bed where they belong. Posted by User:70.187.149.151
 * I signed your post for you (again). It's clear you have a few misunderstandings about Wikipedia. You might want to review What Wikipedia is not. Note, however, that your rights (1st amendment or otherwise) will not be violated if what you post on Wikipedia is removed, just as your rights are not violated if a newspaper does not print your letter, or a building owner washes off your graffiti. You may also want to look at Rights. -Rholton 04:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * There's no 1st amendment rights here. Wiki is a privately owned enterprise. It's like being in someone's house--if they don't like what you're saying, they can boot you out. Wiki is under no obligation to keep pages. A claim to 1st amendment rights is ignorant.  And as for the comparison to scientific theories, it's just a little bit different. This isn't a theory by a reputable scientist. It's a joke theory cooked up by a couple of college kids. Sarah Ewart 05:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sarahe's is right on target. Even theories by reputable scientists are not accepted here unless they are first published elsewhere. See No original research. -Rholton 05:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOR and only "Congress" can violate anyone's First Amendment rights. Peyna 06:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nonsense. *drew 09:07, 30 November 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.