Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarke Theorem

Clarke Theorem
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete.

Probably vanity, or a personal essay disguised as a "theorem". There doesn't seem to be any philosopher named "Timothy Clarke", and a Google search turned up various Clarke Theorems in mathematics and computer science, but nothing resembling this. --BM 02:08, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. nonsense. Even if it existed this theorem wouldn't be original, just add a bit about base and superstructure and you have pretty much what Karl Marx postulated over 100 years earlier. Rje 02:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original (using the term very loosely) research, vanity, hoax. Shimeru 02:45, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete.Mikkalai 04:15, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. utcursch 12:23, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, deep thoughts, which Orwell articulated better. Wyss 22:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seems legit to me. -- Judson 22:18, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, article hasn't been proven a hoax. -- Crevaner 00:03, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with above, reasons for deletion haven't been proven. -- Old Right 00:56, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, Megan1967 02:11, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete utterly unsourced, unreferenced nonsense. not a shred of evidence for it.  how else can you prove a hoax, than to point out there is nothing whatsoever in its favor?  Google search Can anyone voting keep make an affirmative argument for this?  Is it a coincidence that the 1st three keep voters all demonstrate right-wing affiliations on their user pages?  Serious question. I'm not sure what one's political affiliations have to do with whether this is a hoax, but there does seem to be a correlation. Michael Ward 05:13, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Sysops evaluating vote: please note that Judson, Crevaner, & Old Right have voted on exactly the same 5 or 6 vfd's on this page in exactly the same way in sequence. Would it be wrong of me to suspect these votes may not be exactly independent? Michael Ward 07:31, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Funny, there typically used to be an interval one to six hours between Crevaner and Old Right's votes and sometimes Crevaner would vote first and sometimes Old Right... Dpbsmith (talk) 02:51, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hoax.  Antandrus 05:38, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Highly suspect article. Indrian 23:39, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete unless good verifiable source provided. Probably hoax. Googling on "Timothy Clarke" power perpetuation yields only two hits, neither relevant. Unlikely that a philosopher would call such a thesis a "theorem." (And: irrelevant to deletion debate, but I think everything here can be summarized in Lord Acton's dictum, "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.") Dpbsmith (talk) 02:48, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete unless verification materializes. Sounds bogus. Josh Cherry 00:08, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

subst