Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F-Unit (self-replicator)


 * 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.  Singu larity  00:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

F-Unit (self-replicator)

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

Ignore the fact that this article was written by the inventor of the idea. Ignore the fact that at the slightest provocation the inventor descends into endless screeds of irrelevancies and personal attack on talk pages - see special:contributions/Fraberj (and many anon edits). Ignore the fact that the article is long winded and only slightly less incomprehensible than the patent specification it references. Just concentrate on the fact the subject is non-notable. Populus summed it up here very clearly. The device has not been implemented. Only one independent web reference is supplied and that is highly critical. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Self-written article that does not pass notability; general query results in zilch. No sources, just original research. seicer  |  talk  |  contribs  16:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree completely that the notability of the subject is highly suspect, and everything RHaworth says is true. I also don't think it would be a loss to see this article deleted. But the decision to create this article was the result a lot of discussion at Talk:Self-replicating machine, where we decided that this is the best course of action. User:Bobprime and I are trying to work with the creator of this material to get it sourced, and demonstrate its notability. It is highly likely that notability will not be established through reliable sourcing. That said, this article was nominated for deletion no more than a day after it was created, and I want to ask that we have more time. If those participants in this discussion agree to give us a chance to demonstrate its notability or lack thereof, I assure everyone that either the problem will be solved or I will renominate this article for deletion within a month. Thanks. -FrankTobia (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. "It is highly likely that notability will not be established through reliable sourcing." Did you mean that or is the "not" an accident? Assuming you mean it as written, you are admitting that it is non-notable and therefore deserves deletion. As to nomination within one day: a) if an article is patently unsuitable then it matters not how soon you delete it, b) this particular title was only created within the last day but a previous, very similar version was very firmly deleted by this AfD back in 2006 and c) the text has been around since 2007 October in close to its present form with no noticeable improvement. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think the article should be deleted, I was just using it as a tool to get the content off of Self-replicating machine. Good luck making the delete stick though as Fraberj doesn't really believe that wikipedia policy applies to him, that's the fight I was trying to avoid.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobprime (talk • contribs) 05:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Appears to fail WP:N. I have found and added refs in a great many AFDs in less than 5 hours and the improved article has been kept. Why is the standard 5 days insufficient for this topic? Edison (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - The "not" is no accident: from what we've seen it's going to be an uphill battle finding reliable sources, if they exist. Bobprime and I have been wrangling with the writer of the information in this article, trying to draw out sources that would establish notability for the subject. If such sources exist, I think he'd be the only person who'd have them. Honestly, the editor in question has been less than helpful, which is why five days is not enough. But I am not ready to give up yet. Unless, of course, this AFD makes the matter moot, which is highly likely that it will. One more response to RHaworth: I haven't had since October. I've only been dealing with this article for a week. The reason it's been in such poor shape for so long is because the editor who created it doesn't much appreciate Wikipedia policy. But Bobprime and I do, and we're willing to see if we can't fix it up. I understand it seems strange to be spending so much time on something seemingly marginally important. But I'm already involved in this issue, and I don't like deleting things unless absolutely necessary. -FrankTobia (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC) I'm withdrawing my comments per Bobprime. I'm glad this is going to be over soon. -FrankTobia (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yow, really not worthy of a month long stay of execution.  The normal five days are enough.  Without substantial improvement and demonstration that this is an encyclopedic subject that can be written about in an encyclopedic manner, pull the plug.  Really, the article adds absolutely no value to wikipedia at all and in fact degrades it.  Quale (talk) 05:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - as a copyvio of . Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  07:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Probably the reverse - the HTML header of the geocities page says "Last-Modified: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:37:17 GMT". I think Charles has taken up my suggestion to put it on his own website. (We will overlook the fact that having been so keen to publish it on Wikipedia, he should not withdraw the GFDL licence!) -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as unmitigated blather. Or to put it another way. Build it, get the NYT to write an article on it, and we will come. Mangoe (talk) 16:12, 1 March 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.