Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imagine No Limits


 * 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 of the debate was delete.  Sango  123   23:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Imagine No Limits
Originally prodded with reason, “Original Research, appears to be something made up in school one day, unverifiable". Removed without explanation by original editor, so here it is. Agent 86 21:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not for something made up after consuming too many mushrooms. Fan1967 21:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete After reading that article, I couldn't possibly say it better than Fan. -- Kicking222 21:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as this article doesn't actually refer to anything. There is no reason this would be in an encyclopedia. It isn't even referenced! Now, I did search on Google and did find the phrase all over the place. But that isn't enough to keep an article seemingly that is just another's thoughts. Lsjzl 21:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete trash. Danny Lilithborne 01:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This seems to be gussied-up Solipsism. It also seems to be OR, if you can call it research. Ace of Sevens 06:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Deletion Agreed I suggest that users Agent 86, Fan1967, Kicking222, and Danny Lilithborne read Jimbo's Statement of Principles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales#Statement_of_principles. Wikipedia was established partly to promote respectful cooperative behavior but rather than sticking to specific issues in a constructive manner, Agent 86 begins with “something made up in school one day” and Fan1967 follows up with “Wikipedia is not for something made up after consuming too many mushrooms” with Danny Lilithborne simply calling it "trash".  This discussion has prompted me to further review Wikipedia and I found that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability  It was my misunderstanding to think that Wikipedia was an attempt to consolidate in one place what can be thought of as a factual clearinghouse, which would also include clarification of points that form a logical basis for factual understanding.  What I have said is not original research, nor is it something made up in school one day, but part of a 51 years of personal experience and study, nor is it unverifiable except to those who would rather have an opinion than actually see what is indeed available for review.  You are each obviously unfamiliar with Einstein's interest in the nature of reality and his involvement in things such as the book "Mental Radio".  But I suppose that Einstein understood the weakness inherent in how people view the world which is what freed him to think so differently and go beyond all the best minds of his time and prevailing concepts of physics.  That is precisely why he made the comment I quoted in my original article.  I am new to Wikipedia and due to the nature of your comments, I find this environment isn’t conducive the sharing of meaningfully valid information, nor discussing with civility what is appropriately includable or where.  I would have expected more intelligent comments in this discussion, like "please give more specific references to" with a reason as to what it is that you don't understand or which you feel needs clarification or referencing.  I appreciate the comments of Lsjzl and Ace of Sevens who made meaningful comments that might have made for an enjoyable discussion.  But that will be unnecessary because I'm not interested in affiliating myself with a system where the system’s own guidelines for discussion aren’t adhered to by people who lack maturity, mutual respect, and the ability to communicate meaningfully.  Please leave this posting on display for the full 5 days so that I may share the kind of review that went into our discussion.  If there is a moderator outside of the above respondents, I would appreciate your observations.  Thank you, Duane Young 07:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Response Not buying it. You don't get to ride Einstein to validate your own made-up philosophies, and I'm quite offended at the suggestion that we're "obviously unfamiliar" simply because we see this for what it is - unencyclopedic trash.  If anything, Lsjzl and Ace of Sevens were even harder on you than I was, Ao7 calling it " [original research], if you can call it research".  I'm personally sick of wannabe Hegels and Schopenhauers trying to pass their trendy mish-mash of tenets, then getting mad at the Wikipedia concept and calling us "communists" and whatnot when they get rightfully erased as unprofessional hodgepodge.  This AfD process was created for a reason, and it's not for the vacuous pastime of critical debates on Postexistiphililennonarxism.  We're trying to create an encyclopedia, not indulge in a jolly old bipartisan romp around the park.  Do what you have to to get your article kept, but don't guise personal attacks in intelligent-sounding words again.  Danny Lilithborne 08:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Ditto. There's nothing remotely encyclopedic or salvageable here. Fan1967 14:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility Being rude, insensitive or petty makes people upset and prevents Wikipedia from working properly. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally. Mediation is available if needed. -Wikipedia Civility Quote 24.180.12.206 07:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * "[I]f the other party is not as civil as you'd like them to be, make sure to be more civil than him or her, not less." - WP:EQ See? Two people can play the wikilawyering game. It's fun! =) But seriously, just a suggestion - this is a deletion debate about the article. If anything, we're insulting the article. We don't usually have problems with users who create the ocassional bad articles... everyone's probably guilty of that at some point. So please cool down before accusing other people of etiquette breaches - this debate isn't even moderately warm yet, and you don't want to see the worst flamewars I've seen. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. We're not out here to publish Random Thoughts. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:35, 11 June 2006 (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.