Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Elliott Argument


 * 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 was DELETE and SALT, WP:SNOW. The creator is advised to actually read Original research and Notability before editing Wikipedia further. And What Wikipedia is not, while you're at it... postdlf (talk) 04:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The Elliott Argument

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Unsourced, entirely synthesis and original, very essay like. The Elliott Argument might be a notable topic, but the article as written is entirely unsalvageable. v/r - TP 14:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and perhaps salt too . At this point this is just getting silly. As it stands, the current article, is a highly biased personal essay, filled with synthesis and original research, that is backed up with no reliable references. Clearly the topic has generated a huge amount of internet hype and response, but it is unclear what if any of this is actually encyclopedic. If an article is to exist on the subject it needs to be done with a huge amount of care. The persistent attempts to publish the article also appears to be trolling, see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. France 3470   ( talk ) 15:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: Elliott Argument which should also be salted. France 3470   ( talk ) 16:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This argument is very noteable and The Elliott Argument has become a huge debate topic in the last 2 years. This article allows people to see what the formal argument actually is and some of the objections and rebuttals to it. The author continues to edit the material and provide suitable references and external links which wikipedia will consider acceptable. Please do not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrfivethirty (talk • contribs) 16:47, September 18, 2012‎
 * A little research shows the argument does have some notoriety. In the same way that Holocaust Denial has notoriety Mongoletsi (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If the article has been so highly debated, one would expect it to appear in articles other than personal blogs. Until then it is original research and should be treated as such. One should recall Wikipedia's policy on autobiographical articles - you don't write about yourself. 94.11.89.120 (talk)


 * Nowhere in the article is the author writing about himself. The very fact that this message board is getting so much attention and the article isnt even published yet should be further evidence that this is noteable! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrfivethirty (talk • contribs) 16:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, the author of the article is Chad Elliott himself.


 * Please do not delete. It is NOT ORIGINAL research. It is a formal argument, and there will be references and links provided from other sources!! The author is not writing anything about "himself"...only the argument and its rebuttals/objections. Thank you for you understanding. I dont go around and delete atheist arguments just because I dont like them.  Please let me finish putting it together.
 * Again, this is not how Wikipedia works. Please post a FINISHED article.  It is then open to honest academic review.  If you delete "atheist arguments" because you disagree with them, or indeed any other pieces because you disagree, you are not in the spirit of this free encyclopaedia and are likely to be banned. Mongoletsi (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt - I read the whole piece, and things like "this is a pic of Chad Elliott smoking cannabis" and "The Elliott Argument is no argument" do not make for an article, never mind the editorializing about Mr. Elliott in the article supposedly about his argument. This is YouTube nonsense to boot. I'm inclined to believe that Mrfivethirty is self-promoting, from here, as a "fivethirty" posted the original video, as well as the "the author" statements made above (which are supposed to make me think this is someone else?). MSJapan (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, SALT and warn - the article should be deleted, the title and reasonable variants SALTed, and the user in question warned about attempting re-creation in mainspace - AfC or sandbox is fine, if plans are made for a constructive article i.e. adhering to policies and guidelines and not just an unsourced ramble of OR. GiantSnowman 16:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt: In addition to being completely unsourced and a WP:FRINGE theory, a comment on the page clearly shows the political agenda: “THIS PAGE IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION...If atheists aren't scared of truth they will quit deleting it and trying to hide this argument from the world!!” —$Kerfuffler stalk harass$ 16:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete/salt/etc Unreferenced & non-notable. Possible WP:BLP concerns.  WP:NOTOPINION, WP:NOTESSAY, and WP:NOTBLOG apply.  Possible reason for article's creation could be to create notability for, to bestow legitimacy upon, and to drive traffic to the non-viral/low-views Youtube videos. Shearonink (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I also note that Mrfivethirty has now removed comments from this page five times, including two complete blankings. I'm not filing a 3RR yet, but he's certainly earned it. —$Kerfuffler stalk harass$ 16:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt - Bunch of nonsensical, non-scientific drivel masquerading as an encyclopedia article. Unsourced WP:OR, WP:POV and WP:FRINGE. -- Alexf(talk) 16:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. As written, I see zero evidence of any encyclopedic notability. Essentially a WP:OR essay. Find a blog if you want to rant. -- Kinu  t/c 16:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete A thorough Google search turns up not a single reliable source even mentioning this, much less "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," per WP:GNG (there is an unrelated "Elliott argument" having to do with U.S. policy in Ethiopia in the 1970s). First Light (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The article contains no references and even has a note indicating that it's under construction. If the article can be made to meet Wikipedia's guidelines, develop the article in your userspace until it's ready for inclusion in the encyclopedia. DOSGuy (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Snow Delete The article is completely unreferenced OR written like an essay. There is nothing salvageable here, and even if there were the possibility of a valid article, it would still be far easier to delete this mess and start over.  Rorshacma (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Mrfivethirty has been blocked for disruptive editing for 48 hours.  City O f  Silver  18:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: I failed to find any evidence of the subject's existence. Though idea of salting is attractive, the deletion logs have no records concerning The Elliott Argument. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe the salting comes from the fact that the editor has written that he will continue to repost it. —$Kerfuffler stalk harass$ 21:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article has been previously re/created under the title Elliott Argument. The original editor/author is additionally calling for support across the Internet, making statements that nobody will stop him from presenting his message. Cindy  ( talk to me ) 01:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: There was an apparent attack page/article (see AfC's deletion log). And as to the statements elsewhere purporting to be from the article-creator re: no one stopping him from presenting his message, no one is stopping anyone from doing anything at all here...everyone is free to pay for their own space on someone else's servers and present whatever they want elsewhere. Shearonink (talk) 03:20, 19 September 2012 (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.