Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Hamel


 * 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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines due to the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

David Hamel

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

Not notable. Almost all sources are unreliable and heavily POV. If retained would need serious work on sources and wikifying. Rushyo (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing WP:BIO for lack of notability. Lastingsmilledge (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The fact that the one link I looked at was broken does not bode well. Overall, the article looks like it could use work and more scrutiny on its sources. Jclemens (talk) 04:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Changes since AfD started do not convince me of the salvage value of this article. Jclemens (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per lack of independent reliable third party sources and POV. Artene50 (talk) 04:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable and most claims will always be impossible to source. 195.167.65.105 (talk) 10:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've removed most unsourcable stuff, making the article a little more encyclopedic. Still think it should go, though. 195.167.65.105 (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment2: Never mind. The main editor seems to insist on re-inserting the exact stuff that makes the article deletable. 195.167.65.105 (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment C'mon, this is one of the few guys to be contacted by the aliens from the planet Kladen... anyone? anyone?  Okay, delete for nonsense.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment What about Billy Meier? You should also delete him as well, or John Hutchinson or even John Searl. I mean, all these guys have simularity to David Hamel. Oooops, my god, it's all about POV. Well, the sources are there people (above). Websites and books and photographs. Jeez, that sounds like proof to me? Doesn't it to you any of you morons? Oh, I guess you just don't know how to look! Broken link? Where? Impossible claims! Claims are more than abundant with proof. You have to look to see proof. Go ahead and vote to delete...your competitor websites will support David Hamel. You people, however, will lose out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.154.26.87 (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)  — 165.154.26.87 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Well, that last remark is a tough act to follow, but here goes: Delete Not a single reliable source on this guy, I guess all us "morons" will have to continue living in ignorance while our "competitors" get the advantages of contact with the magnanimous beings of planet Kladen. Beeblbrox (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Unsourced, non-notable, though unintentionally amusing. Edward321 (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * comment: to Beeblbrox. Yes, it is a tough act to follow. And yes, you may be losing out on an opportunity to support Atlanteian Age science. Sorry about the 'moron' thing. But being too quick to 'judge', like you guys have done, is your own fault. What is the definition of 'sourced' btw? Like univerity/PHD backed up information? Or accredited knowledge through an institution? You see, that is where your doctrines fail. It's a leap of faith this world needs to make. Your level of scientific understanding is applaudable...and yet NOT complete. There are things you people don't know yet...and it is starring you in the face. It's all around you. That's your first lesson from me. It's all around you, like a Matrix. Good luck. I AM a tough act to follow. The tough part is trying to convince something too obvious to the world. The good part, is maybe I can help people this way, by being the tough act. So be it. But since WIKI can't support exotic topics, that could be a problem. I suggest you people consider an Exotic WIKI database that can be expansive solely for supposed 'fring' topics. BTW, hamel is NOT fring. It's a matter of POV as you people stated too many times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattihorn (talk • contribs) 13:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Policies on sourcing are clearly described on this page. You may also want to read this page. Wikipedia does not "support" any particular philosophy other than the five pillars. The other articles you mentioned have adequate sourcing, indeed one guy had a whole book written about him. However, I thank you for softening the nature of your remarks and on behalf of everyone in this AfD accept your apology. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * and yet you still edit out useful things (actually, whoever is editting it, is over-editting things out...probably to control the situation with me...back stabbing). It's okay, you guys want a war, I'll give you one. One way or another, when the page is deleted, I won't bother you anymore. Until then, I'll just spend the 1 minute or so, to revert it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattihorn (talk • contribs) 14:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed."" YOU GUYS ARE BREAKING YOUR OWN POLICIES. LAME. LOL! You guys are taking away the priviledges to edit as well. WP policy? Yeah right! This is a 'told you so' scenario. Gang Up mentality. You people should be reported to someone above yourselves. Lose your jobs. Because you are not doing a very good and honest job. That is for certain. This is called internet bullying as well. More indirect, but it's still the same. My actions weren't bullying at all. Yours clearly are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattihorn (talk • contribs) 14:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Beeblbrox, but your buddies are asking for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattihorn (talk • contribs) 15:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * hey fellas...I think I am going to revert one thing back to you...it's called 'morons'. Sorry
 * You Guys... Be Nice--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What is the unanimous vote count for an actual deletion of an article? Someone please point me to the policy. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.154.26.34 (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Under Guide to deletion the standard is "Rough consensus." I noticed that you used the word "unanimous" and referred to a "vote count," but deletion does not requrie unanimity, and it is a discussion, not a vote. Lastingsmilledge (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well then, who gets the 'axe job' then? The head cheese or the simple editor? I don't see the logic in this discussion then. Beause someone is going to make a vote regardless of what you just said.
 * Comment The key top the discussion is to support your arguments logically, rather than merely to muster democratic support for your article. One of the administrators, I don't know who, will make the call to delete or keep based on the strength of the arguments, not the number of votes. Lastingsmilledge (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also everything at Wikipedia works by consensus. this page explains how it works, and this page explains how the whole operation works. Beeblbrox (talk) 05:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable whack-job. There, I said it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Also deleting admin should probably salt the title, since Mattihorn is threatening to re-create. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I have recreated...but not here. So mock all you want bonehead.
 * whatever...goof. Whack job? No he wasn't. He was brilliant. Many people over this globe knew him. He had alot of people come to him. His 'noteability' is the length of commitment on his end. The internet has supported his work/cause for a long time. The only whack-job here is people who make judgements without doing the research into the man.


 * Careful just being a "whack-job" doesn't mean he's not notable (I think this one is not notable). See Emperor Norton, sometimes known as "His Imperial Majesty Emperor Norton I" or "Emperor of these United States and Protector of Mexico."  Being a "whack-job" is not a reason to delete--being non-notable is a reason to delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with people these days is lack of research. You all should get off your well formed asses, and research him thoroughly and correctly before dismantling him. YOU MIGHT ACTUALLY LEARN SOMETHING AS WELL. :)
 * Like I said to the whack-job above, when you do the research into the man and his work...you will know if he is noteable or not. He is more NOTEABLE than any of you....if you people held any scientific backgrounds. Which I don't see here at all. I do....through experience.


 * Fortunately, being "more notable than me" is not the rule for inclusion in Wikipedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I fully recognize, Paul, that it's possible for a whack-job to be notable (witness Richard C. Hoagland and Thomas E. Bearden). But, as you rightly point out, this one is not. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh Yeah! Those guys are TREASURES to read about!  I wish Hamel had notable information about him so we could post it, if only for my own entertainment!  But that's not how we slice grapes in Wikipedia...--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if its entertainment you want, have a look at this video (start six minutes in) or any of the other videos that used to be in the article (act now before it's deleted) to see what kind of a brilliant scientist we're dealing with here. Ten bucks if you can make any narrative or analytical sense out of anything he says. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh my goodness! That's AWFUL!  The internet is a wonderful and sad place, isn't it?--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Somewhat unrelated comment but I've lost my patience to deal with this guy. One person has left Wikipedia due to his abuse and he has been given multiple personal attack warnings. Tried a couple of avenues, been ignored by the community/admins (and when I say ignored I mean, completely, with no reasoning)... so I give up. If someone else wants to try then good luck. -Rushyo (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, once this article is gone, I don't think we'll have much of a problem, since it seems to be the only thing he's interested in here. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Btw, the video the person mentioned above is crud. You have to get into the real videos which are about 4 hours in length. There is much more to be had. What makes me laugh at people like you, is how you really 'dig' into that research. Boy oh boy, you guys should get plaques for your efforts. LMAO! And you know what, who cares if you lost one person to me. The world has over 6 billion on it. I am sure you'll find a replacement in due time. I guess Rushyo really loved the guy. Were you common-law? haha Obviously you people have NO IDEA what the hamel physics are and how important they are to our future. You judge the man before you understand the physics. You judge the book by it's cover, without learning about the contents. You are going to be somewhat at a loss...but my superiors tell me to not waste time (So much) trying to convince the buffoons of planet earth. Hail to Free Energy and endless suffering to those who wish to suppress it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattihorn (talk • contribs) 13:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ''lost patience with me, eh? Good. Yeah, you're right Mr. Steve Anderson. Once this article is finished, I will be gone. I have no other 'editorial' doings here besides that.
 * Free Energy? Okay prove us wrong! You got a device that generates free energy?  Turn it on and remove all doubt.  I'd love to be wrong on that!--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:07, 11 July 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.