Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Messianotechnism


 * 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. W.marsh 02:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Messianotechnism
First-person original research. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * delete per nom. Thatcher131 02:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per nom--Kalsermar 02:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you specify which of the criteria for speedy deletion that this meets? Stifle 00:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOR and probably WP:NFT. It's pretty ridiculous; not even worth a BJAODN. The author of this article respects the ideals of the moderators of Wikipedia.org, yet feels that this is something that exists and deserves this space on the world wide web, so that others may become aware of its existence. If you have to justify the existence of your article... it's probably nonsense.  --Kinu 03:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per WP:NFT and WP:PN. Undergraduate this year? That's the definition of made up in school. Jaxal1 03:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you specify which of the criteria for speedy deletion that this meets? Stifle 00:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * See my ciomment below. Patent nonsense is a criteria for Speedy. Jaxal1 03:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Patent nonsense is random jumbles of characters or words, like "43lfdlladfkmb" or "ghost food jump left silly". This is nonsense, but not patent nonsense. Stifle 12:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I maintain that the second definition of nonsense applies. Those are all complete sentences, but they make no sense. Redfinition creation a new sigularity? Jaxal1 17:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Not serious, but not funny either.  Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 03:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you specify which of the criteria for speedy deletion that this meets? Stifle 00:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as vanity OR.Blnguyen 03:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete... get a blog to spread your sillyness.--Isotope23 03:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete -- Wikipedia is not for things made up in the future. Night Gyr 03:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Silly joke. Chairman S.  09:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research, unverifiable, possibly a troll. The author can start their own webpage if they feel that this philosophy requires an entry on the Internet.  (aeropagitica)   19:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: for speedy deletion, an article must meet very specific criteria. Even if it against policy, like "no original research", it cannot be speedily deleted otherwise. -- Kjkolb 20:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Patent Nonsense is criteria for Speedy. Jaxal1 22:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think that since speedy deletion is actually a separate (and mutually exclusive) process from AfD, a vote for "speedy delete" in an AfD is understood to mean "I have no hesitation in casting my vote in this direction.  People often vote "speedy keep" the same way, and they couldn't be referring to the article meeting the criteria for Speedy Keeping ... since there is no such process. =)  -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: No. If you want to say "I have no hesitation...", it's "Strong delete". And there are criteria for speedy keeping :) Stifle 00:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Stifle is correct. Also, articles are routinely speedy deleted when they are on AfD based upon votes for speedy deletion, so the process is not completely separate. -- Kjkolb 03:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete patent nonsense. Get a blog! Camillus (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete with prejudice as vain completely nonsensical original research. It "could have 36 members" It "was created in spring 2006". Now, maybe it's just the blizzard clouding my mind, but I don't think spring 2006 has occured yet. Mak emi 00:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOR. Possible BJAODN, in particular the first paragraph. Stifle 00:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Ruby 01:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete notable articles don't generally plead for their life in the first graf. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: Just because a page is blatantly written by beings from the future doesn't mean that it should be removed. It only appears nonsensical, to those who are embroiled in the aristotelian conception of linear time.Harrypotter 23:26, 17 February 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.