Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LaRouche-Riemann Method

 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 No consensus to delete. The article should be merged to Political views of Lyndon LaRouche. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LaRouche-Riemann Method
Anyone voting here please also see Votes for deletion/Triple Curve, which was created by the same editor for the same reason.

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Article has POV problems. Nominator abstains from voting.  &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 00:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This article was created by a new account in violation of two arbitration committee rulings prohibiting supporters of Lyndon LaRouche from making edits or creating articles that promote LaRouche, or which are based on LaRouche publications, which the arbitration committee has determined constitutes original research. The Power of Reason has posted a photograph of LaRouche on his user page, and is making no secret of his support for him. See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for an incident report.


 * The two arbcom rulings are at Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche and Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:19, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unencyclopedic; based on discredited publications; represents a tiny-minority view; has no hope of becoming NPOV; constitutes original research; and violates LaRouche-related arbcom rulings.SlimVirgin (talk) 00:19, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see how in the world this violates an ArbCom ruling unless the ruling was that LaRouchites can't write about LaRouche. The only question I can see is whether it's notable enough to have an article. Since we already have lots of content on LaRouche, and since LaRouche does have an organization of some size, the answer to that seems to me to be that yes it is sufficiently notable. I suppose if this is a particularly obscure or marginal idea even by LaRouche standards I might change my mind. Everyking 00:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that with 35 Google hits it would certainly be considered obscure by most definitions of the word. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 02:05, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep; let's keep our views about the subject matter separate from the question of notability. Everyking 00:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Per SlimVirgin Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 00:43, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per SlimVirgin. Article has no reputable sources. Jacob1207 01:01, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * My guess is it would probably be pretty easy to find some article in LaRouche's paper confirming that this "method" is a real LaRouche idea. Everyking 01:02, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Your statement doesn't in any way contradict Jacob1207's statement. --Calton | Talk 03:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: The question isn't whether LaRouche is infamous and notable, but whether this method is.  It isn't.  It's foil hattery by his followers, and the most we could do is merge and redirect to the LaRouche article.  We don't allow the break-out of every verse from the Bible, every principle of Locke, nor, by any means, every "method" of LaRouche. Geogre 01:24, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Everyking. People have different views on whether or not the method is notable, so deleting the article on the basis of the theory not being notable is not in accordance with the NPOV policy. Pincus 01:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability is not a VfD criteria. Verifiability is. LaRouche publications are not reliable sources, even (or especially) about LaRouche. -Willmcw 01:32, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Huh? A LaRouche publication is the perfect source for determining whether or not this is an actual LaRouche idea. The question of whether or not it's right or not is irrevelant. To make that judgement would be inherently POV. Everyking 01:41, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unverifiable LaRouchecruft. We don't need a separate article on each and every single one of his "ideas" - we'd soon run out of "not paper" if that was the case. --FCYTravis 02:10, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, agree with SlimVirgin. --bainer (talk) 02:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, agree with SlimVirgin and Willmcw. We already have too much space on Wikipedia for the dubious and idiosyncratic views of LaRouche and his followers.--Cberlet 02:52, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Pincus and Everyking. Also, I was illegally blocked for no reason as User:The Power of Reason earlier today. The Power of Human Reason 03:07, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * User's first edit. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:10, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Rewrite as a stub on the off chance someone might actually look it up, but the, uh, theory seems to be patent nonsense in and of itself, bordering on Deep Thoughts. Haikupoet 03:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as the subject matter is mere piffle that (rightly) hasn't attracted the world's attention. -- Hoary 03:53, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
 * Delete yet another hare-brained scheme to promote LaRouche. Change of vote to Merge and redirect to Political_views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche. It's still hare-brained, I've taken a stab at making it NPOV hare-brained, so maybe it's acceptable now.  --Calton | Talk 03:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete POV original research. JamesBurns 07:14, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Lyndon LaRouche. Ridethefire3211 07:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, creation of this article violates the arbcom ruling on Lyndon LaRouche. RickK 19:31, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * How? I don't understand this logic. We have several other LaRouche related articles...do those also violate the ruling, just because of the subject? Everyking 19:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Firstly, as per the rationale above. Secondly, the article does not actually explain what the LaRouche-Riemann Method actually is. Go ahead and read it; it says nothing about the Method itself. The text is waffle. And the final paragraph is nonsensical; the writer's faith in the Method is based on a speculative, fictional hypothesis.-Ashley Pomeroy 19:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-encyclopedic nonsense. Jayjg (talk)  20:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to support a variation on the solution Willmcw alludes to on Votes for deletion/Triple Curve. That is, merge it into the Economics section of Political views of Lyndon LaRouche, but probably split that article into two, "Political views of..." and "Economic theories of..." That way, the first can be a place to dump, and rewrite in neutral prose, his general conspiracy theory nonsense, and the second can serve the same purpose for his self-aggrandizing fanciful economic models. In this case, merging the content and leaving behind a redirect does no harm. --Michael Snow 22:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Give Michael and anybody else who cares a chance to merge, then Delete. DanKeshet 00:04, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: nonnotable crankery, agenda promotion. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn POV original research from discredited sources. Tobycat 06:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. LaRouche may be a crank but I see no reason why there shouldn't be individual articles on his theories, groups, or notable followers.  Kaibabsquirrel 06:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. as per Michael Snow and Willmcw. Unfortunately LaRouche is a charismatic kook, and it is better to document his kookery than censor it. Blank Verse   &empty;   07:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect as per above. This is yet another "LaRouche is a genius who forsaw everything now happening in the world 50 years ago" article.  As such, it has no place as a freestanding article.  But is it something claimed to be so by LaRouche and his followers, and LaRouche, regardless of how loathesome one may find him to be and how well-merited his federal time was, is most assuredly notable, so merge and redirect, not delete.  Rlquall 11:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .