Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OS 0 1 2


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

OS 0 1 2
Nonsense/not noteworthy Jwissick 06:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that it is being spammed all over the wiki.Jwissick 06:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete: Reads pretty much like a load of hooey to me. &mdash; C Maylett 06:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does read like nonsense. Owen&times; &#9742;  13:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Abstain intriguing nonsense, if it is nonsense. Any possibility there is something to this, and it could be cleaned up? KillerChihuahua 13:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC) change to Move to Global Dialectic KillerChihuahua 14:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as nonsense. Groeck 15:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 'Keep' regarding a listing as 'phooey' is a personal opinion and could be said about countless wiki entries many do not understand. there are many blogs and bbs that spread OS 012, as well as OS 012 having a formal framework and presentation on the site listed in the article. It simply is what the entry suggests. Nonsense means that no sense can be made of the entry, and that may be a personal problem with some of the readers, not the problem of the entry. I think some of these critiques are phooey, but I dont assume my opinion is enough to ban those users either. A simple google search on OS 012 would shows that this has an active web presence. http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=%22OS+012%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 or google blog search http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&q=%22OS+0+1+2%22&btnG=Search+Blogs and sites linking to the source page http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=link+to:+//www.highintelligence.com&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tumbleman (talk • contribs) 17:25, September 23, 2005
 * Clarification: Since you appear to be the original author, I'll try to clarify my delete vote comments. The "hooey" that I mentioned wasn't in reference to the article's subject matter (although that might be hooey too), it was referring, instead, to the writing; it's unclear, dense, recondite, incomplete and muddled to the point of being nearly indecipherable. Since nearly indentical versions of the same text appear elsewhere on the Internet, I assume the poor writing isn't yours. However, if you rework the text, improve its structure and clarity, fill in the holes, work on the punctuation, remove the B.S, and provide convincing evidence of notability for this "Internet dialectic," I'm certainly willing to reconsider my vote. &mdash; C Maylett 21:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep and Cleanup. Is it a load of crap?  Probably... but it is a load of crap that has a fairly significant number of blogs, forums, and related chatter in existance.  I can see the potential that someone might reference wikipedia to figure out what it is.  I would however rename the article to OS 012 or at very least do a redirect from OS 012 if OS 0 1 2 is the correct format as the former gets infinitely more google hits than the latter.  I'm also tagging this with a cleanup because the article is not well written and is probably too esoteric to be of any value in its current form.--Isotope23 18:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Personal essay, original research, neologism not in substantial real use. Only reference cited is a website promoting the "meme." Google reports only 77 nonunique hits and most of them are completely irrelevant (i.e. do not refer to the topic of this article), e.g. "masi Music - Buy Rare CDs & vinyl Record Albums...Masiello Desyn, Original Series Os.0 1, 2 listed, $13 - $14" Re-create without prejudice when it becomes an accepted theory and when there is a good, verifiable citation from a neutral source confirming that it is a "master meme," e.g. a listing in Wired's "Memes on the rise." Dpbsmith (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You'll never get that as the master meme label appears to be self-applied by OS 012 proponents.--Isotope23 19:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * That just means that the "master meme" meme must become a master meme before the OS 0 1 2 master meme can be recognized as a "master meme." Dpbsmith (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly.--Isotope23 19:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 'Master Meme' is a term defined for an idea that can no longer be defeated or shown to be false in rational exchange, and continues to spread defeating, via rational exchange, all ideas in conflict with it. The word was 'coined' for the first time at the beginning formation of the dialectic, the only way to prove that it is not such an idea would be to disprove the idea in rational exchange. By definition, OS 012 being a master meme is true. The idea is not personal research, although personal research has gone into it, the idea formed as a natural dialectic on the internet, just as it states. I will work on cleanup as well as encourage others to do so too. User:Tumbleman
 * You lost me when you said "by definition, OS 012 being a master meme is true." Dpbsmith (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a tautology, true by definition. Also, it says OS 012 'claims' to be, not is....read the print. Tumbleman
 * "By definition, OS 012 being a master meme is true" is a quotation from your remark above. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * C'mon dpbsmith, focus on the valid critiques so i can make this page meet your standards here. THis issue with a piece of coined terminology is a non starter for valid critique. A 'master meme', by definition, by how it is defined by the person who coined the word, is an idea that has become dominant and can no longer  be defeated in rational exchange. Such a meme is defined as a master meme. 2 + 2=4 is also a  'master meme'. Since OS 012 cannot, or has not been defeated in a rational discussion, it is, by definition and thus tautologically true a master meme. I dont see what is so hard to understand about that. A term that is defined, and then stays within that definition is a tautological truth, a truth by definition. OS 012 is a meme that spreads through the i nternet word of mouth. Here is a link that shows the stats of number of uniques hits worldwide word of mouth to the site in the past 60 days. http://s2.phpbbforfree.com/forums/os012-about43.html  It being a meme is self evident as it's viral capabilities are proven.  I dont need a write up in Wired to verify that it is a meme on the rise, that is absurd, I just need server stats, which I think are irrelevant to post on wiki, as I am sure most would agree. Tumbleman
 * So by definition if the OS 0 1 2 article gets deleted from Wikipedia does that mean it's been defeated and is thus no longer a master meme or is this page considered an irrational exchange?--Isotope23 20:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as personal essay/original research. --Carnildo 22:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as OR, POV essay, dangerously close to patent nonsense. MCB 02:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It's one thing to claim that it is a POV or personal research, there I could see an arguement, but nonsense? WTF? That is a CLAIM, and an unsupported one at that. Although this is not the proper forum for this, I would normally challenge you to back up such claims in debate. Why dont you pinpoint what is nonsense to you instead of flacking your opinion as if it is fact? What is this, an art gallery or a source for facts?  I dont personally want to do the cleanup on Wiki as I may be too biased, and have put out the request for cleanup. In the meantime, some of you may want to argue this over at the proper forum. I dont mind a proper critique, but slandering something you dont understand as nonsense I wont tolerate. Tumbleman
 * Other sites that promote the global dialectic. http://www.geocities.com/salviacrusaders/os_012/ another one in England http://highcompassion.co.uk/, there is another one in a foriegn language I cant find the link to now....again, personal research sure, but by more than one person, dozens possibly hundreds contributed to this project. The truth values of the document are not personal research, they are self evident. 3rd value logic is not personal research, dialectic is not personal research. the dynamics of internet discussion is not personal research. It (OS 012) was not created by one person, but by many people, as it continues to be...so the claim that it is personal essay is false. There are more than one personal essays about OS 012 on the internet. Those people who created dont even know each other, and are not tied to a group either. Tumbleman


 * Again, to be clear, I have put out the request by an appropiate party to clean up the article. I dont think I can do so unbiased and although I can defend it or argue for it, writing about it objectivly as an outsider may be impossible due to my position. Thank you for your consideration
 * Delete, as per MCB. Vizjim 03:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I stopped reading at "...spreads as a memetic viral via blogs and internet discussion forums." Internetcruft. / Peter Isotalo 04:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research. Internet memes need to be much more powerful than this to be wikipedicized, and there's no evidence of substantive use of this concept outside of a few scattered websites. Ziggurat 04:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per MCB and [User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]]— enceph alon  11:31, 29 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.