Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CASTLE fight


 * 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 was delete. Sandstein (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

CASTLE fight

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

likely hoax. No relevant online references to "CASTLE fight" (other than Warcraft or other games), "evolutionary decision theory of situational complexity" or "stochastic production lockdown", and only one (unrelated) for "feedback production cycle". Several of the references cited also do not show up in searches, and "Donald T. Una" rings alarm bells. Whilst lack of google hits in itself is not conclusive, for a notable computer simulation, which by the refs is around 5 years old, to have no online presence is highly unlikely. Paulbrock (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   —Paulbrock (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computers-related deletion discussions.   —Paulbrock (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been notified on WikiProject Computing's talk page. Paulbrock (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been notified on WikiProject Computer science's talk page.Paulbrock (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dekete this page is the sole ghit for "Computational Adaptive Situational TaiLored Environment" and for "Branches of Complex Game Theory: A Tool Approach" (not found on Amazon). At the least it's nn. JJL (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete: as probable hoax. The turgid prose strongly reminds me of a National Lampoon article describing how you could amaze and confuse people by randomly picking buzzwords from each of three columns: why, no, boss, I'm not goofing off, I'm working on a "Tavistock stochastic modality."  It doesn't provoke confidence that the article was created by an SPA in December who hasn't been seen since.    Ravenswing  13:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete "Donald T. Una"? Yeah, right.  NawlinWiki (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as likely hoax. Yikes.  Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - appears to be a WP:HOAX. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 01:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Edit, don't delete I would like to state that I came across this article searching for it and only became involved in it when I saw a mistaken 'tag' declaring it a hoax. Since I'm somewhat familiar with the topic, I responsibly removed it, gave my brief explanation and moved on.  Whether or not this article survives, there is a point here.

This is a deeper issue in many ways. I would attempt to challenge this but I doubt I have enough 'wiki-clout'. Its a shame that the mob-like mentality of the community will prevent the internet from developing specialized niches of knowledges. Many of the specialists that put time into rigorous education and jobs and then developing knowledge don't have time to mass edit and develop 'wiki' reputations. This was acounted for in the engineering of wikipedia allowing 'anonymous' contributions. Unless you've forgotten, that is allowed.

I suppose a system where scientifically untrained and uneducated editors can sweepingly declare a technical article 'nonsense,' or where a scientist's last name (how infantile can we get) can be criticized with nothing more than a subjective gestalt -- editors who then who move on to continue their off-the-hip shotgun-editing all over the cyber-libraries, is bound to be flawed. The fact that the only possible argument present here is that the critics are unable to follow a 15 word sentence with technical words is revealing in itself. Within the scientific and engineering community, there is a a need to communicate specific meaning which necessitates long sentences and technical words. I suppose, by what I've already said, the majority of you stopped understanding my arguments several sentences ago.

I suppose some of you edit and spend your time reviewing Wikipedia articles out of a need for a hobby, especially one that is accessible from a computer which many of us these days have. Maybe others do it to be part of a community. Perhaps others of you share my hope which is that the Information Age will one day bring in an accessible education to even the most opportunity-poor people. This would have the potential to NOT waste potential of brains anywhere, despite their random and arbitrary circumstances. I bring this point up, only to remind the community that the cultural attitude they take in this online endeavor should reflect this. Therefore, you can each individually choose to execute caution in allowing specialized knowledge bases once excluded from the public to flourish, or to shoot it down in a pitchfork-and-mob-like ignorance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.182.161 (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Despite the fact that — 74.39.182.161 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic., you don't need a reputation to defend the article, just an online reference, or evidence that any of the current references exist. Paulbrock (talk) 08:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To 74.39.182.161 - I do believe that CASTLE flight may exist, however, before trying to sound smart, why don't you explain how editors on Wikipedia, having done their best to find verification of the existence of CASTLE flight and failed, are supposed to make the judgement to keep or to delete the article? Are you saying that if editors can't find verification for the existence of some subject matter, they should assume that they're too uneducated to know about it, and therefore let the article remain on Wikipedia? Moreover, what is "wiki-clout"? I have no "wiki-clout", and still feel free to give my opinion on articles. You seem to miss completely the point of Wikipedia - it's a free encyclopedia editable by everyone - everyone who happens to edit it - if nobody with the required knowledge on an article happens to be present at the deletion nomination process, and if no internet sources are found to verify the subject matter, then, logically (do you know logic?), the editors must conclude that the subject matter doesn't exist. It's done in good faith. Don't preach to me just because you know what CASTLE flight is. I'm not going to preach to you just because my particular area of study is law - if I encounter an article relevant to my area I may or may not edit it - if the editors aren't knowledgable about that area and they happen to make a judgement in good faith that the article should be deleted, then that's what they should do - unless somebody with the required knowledge intervenes. That's why you're given the chance to voice your opinion. You don't need "wiki-clout". Doh. Oh, and, when you wrote "Within the scientific and engineering community, there is a a need to communicate specific meaning which necessitates long sentences and technical words.", you kind of slipped on a banana peel there, didn't you? It's not only in the "scientific and engineering community" that "there is a a need to communicate specific meaning which necessitates long sentences and technical words", this is true of almost any subject which requires a tertiary level of education to be qualified in. Heh, or maybe you think that just because, say, a doctor is not an engineer, he can go about his exams by writing "The heart is shaped like an upside down pear, it's red and I'm pretty sure it pumps blood or something" - because he doesn't need long sentences or technical words, right? Get yourself a damn username and do some edits in your spare time instead of irritating me and writing jack-crap. MaxCosta (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2008 (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.