Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Knowledge Which No One Can Have


 * 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 deleted at original contributor's request and also per WP:SNOW -- The Anome (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The Knowledge Which No One Can Have

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Meaning no offense to the creator, but this isn't an encyclopedia article, it's an essay, and seems, in its current form, to violate many of the things which Wikipedia is not. I don't see how it can be sourced properly and satisfy WP:V and WP:NOR. (And well, if it's salvageable, at least this AFD will bring it some needed attention.) • Anakin (talk) 12:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No one except the intellects can make things which cannot exhibit: 1. divisibility 2. comparability 3. connectivity 4. disturbability 5. reorderability 6. substituability and 7. satisfiability. So, people must be educated not to ask the questions in order to keep reputation of intellectual integrity. --Virginexplorer (talk) 09:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel like there's an inside joke here that I'm missing out on. Since this article was first created (and CSD'd) on October 7th, the content seems to have been published everywhere from Uncyclopedia to [http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091007022548AAzeKh4 Yahoo! Answers] to the Internet Archive to Wikibooks and a bunch of other places. • Anakin (talk) 12:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: appears to be entirely original research -- The Anome (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete I would nominate for speedy deletion if i was more familiar with process. article doesnt indicate reason for notability. the idea of there being unknowable things is, regardless of the truth of it, a notable subject. it may be covered in other philosophy articles, but this is pure original research, and can be safely deleted. i dont believe its even debatable at this point.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * CSD is as simple as putting a tag on the page (and notifying the author, to be polite). But the CSD categories are very specific and so not always usable even in the case of some pages which should be undebatably deleted. This particular article doesn't qualify. • Anakin (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete clearly original research/synthesis. Also clearly the work of someone who feels very strongly about a priori propositions, this does not present a neutral overview and the article title is indicative of this. The article has been substantially revised but the fundamental problems remain. As a result of reading the older version, I am now haunted by visions of non-disturbable and indivisible potatoes. (edited after article revisions) Ben Kidwell (talk) 10:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this article biased? If biased, to which it is biased? Kindly let me know, so that I can remove it.--Virginexplorer (talk) 10:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is on the topic of epistemology with a particular focus on A priori and a posteriori statements. The question of what can and cannot be known and stated has no established philosophical consensus and a neutral treatment of the topic requires a different presentation than this article. You might, for instance, incorporate quotations from your source authors into other relevant articles as part of presenting an overview of different philosophical perspectives on this topic. Ben Kidwell (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Are they apriori propostions alone? Aren't they post ori obervations?


 * Keep First of all, this artcile is not out of any original research. Every part of the artcile can be found as facts in various textbooks and research articles. Students are generally informed on the relationship between the knoweldge one can have about a thing and the properties of things, and about the limits of human knowledge. No part of the article is a new knowledge acquired through any extensive research. Although it is told in the classroom, no attempt has been made before to prepare and publish a formal article. The reason for preparing this article now is that the present day school teachings somehow make the students to think that there is no conceptual relationship among the subjects which they study in schools. Being a biophysical chemistry teacher, for the last four or five batch of students, I find that the students completely fail to go beyond what they have studied in the undergraduate courses and make a exhaustive search on the knowledge base. Other than this, there is no intention in putting this artcile in wikipedia or any other site.

The article has been completely revised again so that it meets the wikipedia quality standards. If any further references or any modification is needed, kindly let me know before deletion. I can spent time to revise, if any further modification is required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virginexplorer (talk • contribs) 09:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The questions to wikipedia are: '''Is this article a thesis? Is this article an essay? '''
 * Are the information content of this article not known to the people before?
 * Is the information content of this article offensive?
 * Is this article inadequately referenced?
 * Is this article biased? If biased, to which it is biased?
 * Is the information content of the article unverifiable?
 * Is this article worthless?
 * Do the younger generation have no right to know the knowledge which no one can have?
 * Do the younger generation be ignorant of the relationship between the properties of things and the human knowledge?--Virginexplorer (talk) 10:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1.Is there anyone to say: I have not heard about divisibility; I have not heard that everything is divisible; I have not heard that nothing is indivisible? Aren’t they taught in schools and written in textbooks? The statement ‘everything is divisible’ directly implies that ‘things which cannot exhibit divisibility cannot be made.’ How much research, thinking or resources a common man need to restate the preceding statement to ‘no one can have the knowledge to make a thing which cannot exhibit divisibility’? ‘Everything is divisible: is this an apriori proposition, or postori inference, or a fact, or common knowledge out of experience?


 * 2.Is there anyone to say: I have not heard about comparability; I have not heard that everything is comparable to everything else; nothing is completely isolated? How can one say that a thing is different from or similar to the other things without making a comparison? How can one compare things which cannot exhibit comparability? How can one arrive at a conclusion – this is different from that or this is similar to that in no thing can exhibit comparability? Aren’t they taught in schools and written in textbooks? The statement ‘everything is comparable to everything else’ directly implies that ‘things which cannot exhibit comparability cannot be made.’ How much research, thinking or resources a common man need to restate the preceding statement to ‘no one can have the knowledge to make a thing which cannot exhibit comparability’? Everything is comparable to everything else:  is this an apriori proposition, or postori inference, or a fact, or a common knowledge out of experience?


 * 3.Is there anyone to say: I have not heard about connectivity; I have not heard that everything is connected to everything else? Aren’t they taught in schools and written in textbooks? The statement ‘everything exhibits connectivity’ directly implies that ‘things which cannot exhibit connectivity cannot be made.’ How much research, thinking or resources a common man need to restate the preceding statement to ‘no one can have the knowledge to make a thing which cannot exhibit connectivity‘? Everything is connected to everything else: is this an apriori proposition, or postori inference, or a fact, or knowledge out of experience?


 * 4.Is there anyone to say: I have not heard about disturbability; I have not heard that everything is disturbable/sensitive/susceptible; I have not heard that nothing is insensitive? Aren’t they taught in schools and written in textbooks? The statement ‘everything is disturbable’ directly implies that ‘things which cannot exhibit disturbability cannot be made.’ How much research, thinking or resources a common man need to restate the preceding statement to ‘no one can have the knowledge to make a thing which cannot exhibit disturbability‘? Everything is sensitive and disturbable: is this an apriori proposition, or postori inference, or a fact, or knowledge out of experience?


 * 5.Is there anyone to say: I have not heard about reordering; I have not heard that everything is reorderable? Aren’t they taught in schools and written in textbooks? The statement ‘everything is reorderable’ directly implies that ‘things which cannot exhibit reorderability cannot be made.’ How much research, thinking or resources a common man need to restate the preceding statement to ‘no one can have the knowledge to make a thing which cannot exhibit reorderability ?‘ Everything is reorderable: is this an apriori proposition, or postori inference, or a fact, or knowledge out of experience?


 * 6.Is there anyone to say: I have not heard about substitutions; I have not heard that everything has a substitute? Aren’t they taught in schools and written in textbooks? The statement ‘everything is substitutable’ directly implies that ‘things which cannot exhibit substitutability cannot be made.’ How much research, thinking or resources a common man need to restate the preceding statement to ‘no one can have the knowledge to make a thing which cannot exhibit substitutability‘? Everything is substitutable: is this an apriori proposition, or postori inference, or a fact, or knowledge out of experience?
 * 7.Is there anyone to say: I have not heard about statisfiability; I have not heard that everything is required to satisfy the plan with which it is created; I have not heard about need or requirement? Aren’t they taught in schools and written in textbooks? The statement ‘everything is satisfiable’ directly implies that ‘things which cannot exhibit satisfiablity cannot be made.’ How much research, thinking or resources a common man need to restate the preceding statement to ‘no one can have the knowledge to make a thing which cannot exhibit satisfiablity‘? Everything is satisfiable: is this an apriori proposition, or postori inference, or a fact, or knowledge out of experience?

How much research or intelligence is required to put the arugments 1 to 7 and make the statement : ‘no one can have the knowledge to make a thing which cannot exhibit: divisibility, comparability, connectivity, disturbability, reorerability, substitutability, and satisfiablity? Is this a thesis or common knowlege?

Is the title biased?The most appropriate title for an article on the knowledge about cow would be THE COW. The most appropriate title for an article on the knowledge about swine flu would be THE SWINE FLU. In the same manner, the most appropriate title on the knowledge about the knowledge which no one can have would be THE KNOWELDGE WHICH NO ONE CAN HAVE. What else would be the appropriate title for an article on the knowledge which no one can have? --Virginexplorer (talk) 03:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Indistinguishable from a parody. I checked a couple of the sources and some could be said to confirm the imprecise sentence for which the source is cited. However, it is extreme WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to make an essay out of the cited components. Johnuniq (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the difference between fact and parody? Do you mean every fact of this article parody? If there is, highlight it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virginexplorer (talk • contribs) 03:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment it is still OR after any changes that were made. creator doesnt seem to understand: for this kind of work, you have to get your thesis published in a peer review journal, from a publisher of note (not a vanity press or self published), then get the material adopted for a class, or discussed in major venues, or found a widely supported nonprofit educational organization based on it. THEN you get an article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there any knowelge which is undisputable? D0 the journals publish the common knowlege? --Virginexplorer (talk) 03:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per above.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. As Johnuniq noted above, this article is based primarily on synthesis. The subject is too ill-defined for an article. —C.Fred (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The last line:

Do any one of the wikipeida reader or admin or editor heard about - ESSENTIAL PROPERTIES OF EXISTENCE? It is not late, Start seaching. You won't find it in internet. Come to me I will teach you - what is meant by ESSENTIAL PROPERTIES OF EXISTENCE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.249.50 (talk) 05:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I found another article,The Indestructible Properties which also doesnt have refs, which i proposed for deletion, and which has some overlap with this article in editing and commentary on talk and deletion pages. the IP address shown here has edited this, and previously edited it as User:Jeyamalini. this is NOT an accusation of sockpuppetry, just pointing out a second article in this vein, and hopefully someone can help good faith supporters and creators of these articles understand why this kind of material doesnt belong here unless its a summary of a published authors views, with refs. These essays may be in fact true (not our call), but they are not verifiable from reliable sources, and WP is not a peer reviewed journal of philosophy, or a free webhosting service.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete As the author says "Are the information content of this article not known to the people before?" since he says it is not, it does not belong here. I suggest a SNOW to avoid his further embarrassment.    DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: See also Articles for deletion/The Indestructible Properties -- The Anome (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: see also Talk:The Knowledge Which No One Can Have, where a recent edit by the article's creator seems to accept that this article should be / will be deleted. -- The Anome (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I learned something very useful for my future from wikipedia. Make people to write on your behalf, never write which is useful to the public. Many people will come with the same title or titles like indivisible potato or indivisible egg. If you are curious to know what I did, just looks at this link: http://the.secret.angelfire.com/secret.pdf Wikipedia will have daytime nightmares in deleting the article. I know how to motivate the people by insult. Let us play a fair game.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virginexplorer (talk • contribs) 03:24, 21 October 2009 (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.