Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Tech

Neo-Tech was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. 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 keep

Neo-Tech
Original research, neologism. Obscure crackpot ideas. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway Talk]] 07:41, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * NPOV and clear keep. Said to be "like a Scientologist's interpretation of Objectivism" . Accused of being a cult, with a history that seems to date back at least as far as 1976 when the "Neo-Tech Reference Encyclopedia" was published . A new religious movement active for the past three decades, even a fairly obscure one, and "crackpot" or not, is ipso facto notable. Samaritan 09:48, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * NPOV and keep. I agree that it's notable.  --PJF (talk) 10:00, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is notable? --Calton 11:02, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Although it may seem strange, on reflection I am going to vote against my own proposal. I think I've a tendency to dismiss objectivist ideas as cranky, whereas they're actually quite influential (they may still be cranky, though).  I recently discovered that Alan Greenspan was  one of Ayn Rand's groupies and still admires her.  Neo-Tech and the whole Zon Power thing is a fringe phenomenon of objectivism--and Samaritan is right, at least to an outsider it looks like Ayn Rand's objectivist ideas dressed up in Hubbardesque formulism.  The Neo-Tech people almost always respond to criticism of their stuff by claiming that an piecemeal attack is being made out of dishonest motives, and that Zon Power must be apprehended as a whole (people who attack Neo-Tech ideas are neocheaters and "pips" and it is said that they are acting out of a wish to conceal the benefits of Neo-Tech, which they feel threaten them).  Very Hubbardesque.  |Neo-Tech has been around long enough and annoyed enough Objectivists to be worthy of note.  NPOV and keep --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway Talk]] 14:37, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Abstain: The problem with Neo-Tech is that it's generating every facet as an article. If we make the decision to keep, then we have to, at the same time, agree that this sets no precedent for neo-cheat or pip or any of the other things, plus no precedent for whatever power chair or thetan removal apparatus they have.  I.e. a single article on a fringe religion is one thing, but I think we have member editors who wish to propagate their beliefs via our site, which is not permissable.  We can say "NPOV and keep," but will it stay NPOV?  Is anyone motivated (as motivated as the believers) to keep monitoring this article to clean it up?  We have folks who watch the Mormon, Scientology, and Randian pages -- all of which attract furious POV warriors -- do we have the same for Neo-Tech?  If so, keep.  If not, merge and redirect.  Geogre 16:12, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with Geogre here. I think my vote has to be cleanup this article to NPOV, and if no one can or will clean it up, delete it instead.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:22, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)  Keep.  I'll be rather disappointed, though, if none of the people voting to keep it because they're notorious crackpots edit the article to balance its current description of the movement as A Vary Legitimite Philosophy Sar.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:41, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, it appears to describe an actual movement and I see no reason to delete it. We just need to watch out for activism, it seems like the kind of topic that could attract true believers to Wikipedia. Rhobite 23:07, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Note that someone's posted to a (mostly dead) usenet group to try and skew the vote: for Neocheating and for Neo-Tech. Just a quick heads-up. Shimgray 19:55, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. VfD is not a Cleanup page. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 23:52, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - these guys have been around for ages. Notable in the field of cultist crackpots - David Gerard 10:15, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep A legitimate and unique Neo-objectivism philosophy. (RJII) -- Note: This vote is from the author of the article.


 * Keep. Yes, it will probably be one more headache but that's a reason to care for it, not to delete it. Dr Zen 06:55, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.