Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramsgate Flat Earth Society


 * Utter nonsense. Delete and move to BJAODN. --   ALargeElk | Talk 11:48, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Regards Ramsgate Flat Earth Soc. page: No problem with your vote for deletion, except that you should offer proof it is a fantasy construct. Although I have very many other possible subjects to offer wikipedia, I do not hold that it should exclude fantasy, given some content like Star trek articles I have noted. If Fiction/Faction is not a legitimate subject here may I propose a request for some repository for such items under the heading of WikiNonsence for those of us that get our inspiration from such forms of research? Faedra 12:50, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC) All the best.

Fester, The Ramsgate Flat Earth Soc. prides itself on its record of disinfomation and utter nonscense, but is an officially recognised group in the archives of Ramsgate library list of Societies, (fact) its history is a matter for debate, perhaps the article should consist of facts related to its manifetation in the C20th. (fact).

I guess the difficulty is in that I have Wikified the item, as if it stood alone it would not register in any linked pages...?

Anti art (Dada) and anti music (punk rock) exist alongside the conventional arts, should not then Anti culture have a place in global knowledge data bases?

Does the Wikifairy really exist?


 * I would replace the gibberish with an article about said society .. if that is I could find any evidence that it really exists. As is, delete.  - TB 13:18, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is not the place for this material. Rmhermen 14:14, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * The article itself says that it is a personal view of the cosmos by the author. That alone is enough for deletion. Wikipedia is not a forum for original research. Delete. DJ Clayworth 14:42, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I believe that the Wikifairy doesn't allow for original research and/or conjecture. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 16:07, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * The wikifairy certainly exists, though whether he will reveal himself as such here on VfD I know not. What I do know is that lucky 6.9 is correct. No original research allowed. (actually come to think of it when he makes the page dissapear from the wikipedia with a wave of his magic "delete this page" wand he will reveal himself) ;-) theresa knott 16:46, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * If the wikifairy finds original research, he steals your toes. It's in his contract. Delete. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 17:17, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Del. Fortunately or not, posting nonsense is not a crime, and there is no burden of proof requiring del-voters to prove it's nonsense. An advocate for retention of apparent nonsense needs to advance cogent evidence overcoming the appearance of nonsensicality, not blither incomprehensibly and mutter "Indeed sir and it's true sir and i never was given to lie/And if you'd been to Ramsgate, sir,/You'd've seen it as well as i".  --Jerzy(t) 04:25, 2004 Jun 17 (UTC)

End Statement: It is at least reassuring the Wikifairy has such awesome powers! I can read the research of others with confidence in this knowledge, but assure you insane as it seems I was a member of the august fraternity under discussion, it was formed out of sheer frustration at beauacracy and resolved itself upon the quest for pure nonsense. It may not be useful to record this at the 'pedia but you have to try, how else can one be bold? Thanks for all the feedback. No more talk, send in the fairies and the elves to Del. Faedra