Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endeology


 * 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. per SNOW, and also for drama-reduction (see ANI); this is clearly non-notable. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Endeology

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:N; original research; COI jsfouche &#9789;&#9790; Talk 02:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement retracted by author (This edit is in accord with Wikipedia Discussion Guidelines and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act).
 * I object to this proposal for deletion on the grounds that the article adequately conforms to the following Wikipedia guideline:
 * Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
 * the material is not unduly self-serving;
 * it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
 * there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
 * the article is not based primarily on such sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endeology (talk • contribs) 03:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - With all due respect, criteria 5 is clearly not met. The entire subject is based on the self-published original research referenced in the article.  Also, the article does not establish any notability.  jsfouche &#9789;&#9790; Talk 03:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Let us go over the Wikipedia guideline a bit more thoroughly here(if we may). First, it declares that
 * "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves..."
 * This clearly implies that Wikipedia allows articles about self-published materials. If "self published sources" can be used "in articles about themselves," then this obviously states that an article referencing to a self-published book on "Endeology," about the concept of Endeology, would be acceptable. Next, the user Jsfouche addresses the concern of item # 5 which states that "the article is not based primarily on such sources."  The article for "Endeology"  is primarily based on the "concept" of Endeology, not on its "source".  It indeed references to the book titled Endeology: A Discourse on Primordial Forces, but it does not primarily talk about this book. It deals primarily with the "concept" of Endeology.  Please recognize these important distinctions.  Thank you. I can go over the text of the article sentence by sentence to prove this point, if necessary.  But I believe it's already quite evident.  Thank you. The article is primarily based on the subject of the article, this being the concept of Endeology.   It would be natural for  any article to have sufficient content explaining the main components central to the issue set forth.  I don't believe it would be an accurate article if the primary content was made up of disconnected material, do you?    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endeology (talk • contribs) 03:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Please note: In compliance with Wikipedia’s Discussion Guidelines, the strikethrough method is only "recommended," not mandatory. In order to conform to Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act, any website must follow its own policies. Under the advice of my attorney, I have a legal right to edit my own posts in a manner that I see fit, as long as they do not violate any other discussion rules or guidelines. Thank you. --Endeology (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Statement retracted by author (This edit is in accord with Wikipedia Discussion Guidelines and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act)--Endeology (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC). Statement retracted by author (This edit is in accord with Wikipedia Discussion Guidelines and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act).--Endeology (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Statement retracted by author (This edit is in accord with Wikipedia Discussion Guidelines and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act).--Endeology (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Statement retracted by author (This edit is in accord with Wikipedia Discussion Guidelines and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act).--Endeology (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A few points on your comments above: I am not a Christian. I regret that you erroneously concluded that.  Further, it is not civil to make accusations about my "good faith" in following Wikipedia guidelines (and assuming that anyone who is a Christian would likewise obstruct work here on Wikipedia solely because they are Christian).  I kindly ask that you refrain from such further statements about myself or any other editors.  jsfouche &#9789;&#9790; Talk 03:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the last I will say on the matter. You desperately need to read the Wikipedia article on "Assume Good Faith".  jsfouche &#9789;&#9790; Talk 04:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research, or as advertising for the author's selfpublished book. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Oh god, such blatant self-promotion. User:Endeology, you're already in a hole for creating such an article - stop digging by accusing people of being biased against your imaginary theory just because of their religion. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just keep on digging, man. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Under the US Constitution, you have a right to self expression in the USA - or so they say (I'm not American). However, this is Wikipedia and Wikipedia sets the rules here. And I'm afraid that unless you give some reliable independent referencing that shows your philosophy isn't just something only you knows about, then Wikipedia's rules say that you should take it somewhere else. Peridon (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. Article about a made-up theory created by an SPA...and s/he should also consider reading WP:POINT.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 07:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I edited the article in response to the concerns set forth in this forum. I tried to lessen the appearance of it being "self-promotive" and directed the theme primarily toward the "concept" of Endeology.  I also changed the word "theory" to “hypothesis” in order to keep in strict alignment with scientific tradition. If you have any positive suggestions that could help me formulate a strong article, it would be appreciated.  Thank you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.49.44 (talk) 07:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)  --Endeology (talk) 09:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)--Endeology (talk) 09:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete As original research and/or non-notable philosophy. The author is recommended the following sites as they might prove useful in future endeavors: Blogger, Wordpress, Shovels. --Danger (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Might be a good idea, might not. Whichever it is is irrelevant. It's original research and quite possibly self-published. I can not find the publisher's name outside the context of this subject. Some day, this may be a well-discussed and reliably covered topic. It's not that time yet. For a couple more places to get publicity (but which don't count as 'reliable' here), try AboutUs and/or LinkedIn. They don't have the requirements of notability that we do. Peridon (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW - Promotional can apply to things about charities and things which are totally free like computer freeware and philosophical ideas. It's not just for commercial enterprises. Peridon (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2010 (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.