Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Postmodern Tractor

 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 - deleted - SimonP 03:38, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Postmodern Tractor
One of the many things created by Special:Contributions/207.215.247.1, which all seem to be nonsense...mostly they can be cleaned up, but this doesn't appear on Google, even though it appears to be copied from somewhere. This user is also "Serapion" on IRC and is being pretty nonsensical there too. Adam Bishop 18:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete -- nonsense - Longhair | Talk 18:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Salvage -- Personal attacks are not allowed on Wikipedia - any ideological opposition to the understanding that the human condition is presently one which persistently references a certain limited degree of _incompletely analyzed_ uncertainty... People who can't explicate an understanding of Quantum Superposition should be barred from this discussion, as should any categorical generalizations which appeal to already understood List of Cognitive Biases (e.g. anthrocentrism, etc...).  Every claim in the article can be falsified, so, attack it on its _merits_. Serapion | Talk 18:33, 17 May 2005 (PST)
 * Patent nonsense. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 19:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not quite patent nonsense for a speedy delete. Policy reasons:  Original research, source material from elsewhere, title has no objectively perceptible connection to content.  Non-policy reason:  Rant from a tripping grad student, apparently.  Quotes from article, more telling than the author realizes:  "The purpose of this paper is to delve into this uncertainty, examine it, and see if meaningful distinctions can be made between the two categories I have parceled out as segments of the identities cited by the thing which creates meaningfulness for each person who experiences a perception of reality."; "it would be appropriate for us to do without thinking. That is the new writing style people are employing on message boards on the internet, ..."  Or at least the one which this person seems to be employing.  (Sorry, couldn't resist.)  Barno 19:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nonsense, almost gibberish. Even if sense could somehow be made of it (and I feel sorry for whoever tries) it would still be original research, etc. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 20:44, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be about using GIT to advocate anti-realism. That is an interesting idea.  I notice that Barno makes assumptions to explain the identity of the author, and Starblind cites a feeling as a reason to destroy this creation, which I grok as worthwhile, salvagable art.  Reminds me of Sartre's Dirty Hands Play... Mythrandia - 16:17, May 17, 2005 (PST )http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html
 * Note that this user has not made any edits in the past year and a half, and was also a nuisance when they were first around. Adam Bishop 23:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Note also that Wikipedia is not a site for salvaging worthwhile art. Barno 13:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete original research/deep thoughts. Gazpacho 01:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: Deep Thoughts, and Wikipedia is not your gallery. Geogre 02:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research. Megan1967 06:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - original research, and doesn't exaplain what it has to do with the article title anyway. Loganberry 18:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nonsense masquerading as deep thought. DJ Clayworth 20:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Postmodernism for the Dadaist -- this stuff would give Alan Sokal a headache. Haikupoet 04:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Request removal of article to BJAODN, since I want it to be preserved, and, evidently my article isn't going to be treated as if it were an extrapolation of non-original research derived from Deridda, Foucalt, Stephen Hawking, Stephen Pinker, John Stuart Mill, Bertrand Russel, and Kurt Godel's GIT. Once again, I'm requesting removal of all my explications of evolution to BJAODN, so that in case of a revolution similar to ones discussed by Thomas Kuhn occurs, the synthesis I have provided will not be lost.  Besides, it was intended as a slightly humorous articulation of some of the major problems with the current process of history in the first place.  If interested in the basis for my critique, I refer you to Kent Blaser's article regarding Stephen Jay Gould and the Burgess Fault.  Serapion | Talk 10:30, 20 May 2005 (PST)
 * Would you like some cheese with your whine, Serapion? This is not the place for philosophical writings. If what you've written is so important, then surely there are philosophical journals that would be happy to publish them. Haikupoet 03:01, 21 May 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.