Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Candleabracadabra-Acoustic harassment

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Candleabracadabra/Acoustic harassment


Already deleted at voice to skull and voice-to-skull. This is a fictional construct promoted by people who are, according to the evidence, mainly mentally ill, and it's covered in electronic harassment. This is an offsite POV-push, with very obvious co-ordination between accounts. Guy (Help!) 08:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , if you don't mind, add some detail to the case, proving SYNTH or whatever. Your opponent put some work into this article and while, after two quick glances at the article, I'm likely to agree with you, they deserve a detailed explanation, if only to help settle future...what shall we call it...disagreement. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The article has already been deleted several times, there is no such thing as "voice to skull", and it's already covered in the context of electronic harassment. The detailed explanation has already been provided at WP:ANI and elsewhere, as well as in the previous deletion discussions. This is a pretty blatant attempt to end-run round deletion process, and it's the nth attempt to do that for this content. Guy (Help!) 14:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The stuff in the cited Wired articles looks interesting at first glance, though synthesis may have taken place getting from that to the userpage under consideration. The Wired articles aren't mentioned in the electronic harassment article. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Acoustic harassment is certainly not a fictional construct. That's just wrong. As are Guy's delusional claims of my being part of some off wiki collaboration effort. After working on the article and reviewing sources, I've found several existing article already on Wikipedia that address aspects of these perfectly legitimate subjects. And since I've provided Google Books results for acoustic harassment from a plethora of perfectly legitimate sources, claiming that this is something made up is denialism.

As far as the article in my userspace goes, the weaponry aspects should be merged to Sonic weapon. The acoustic harassment article should focus on the technology and the devices as substantially covered, mostly in relation to marine life. There is also some usage of this against birds (at airports and I live near blueberry fields and they shoot off guns to scare those away). There are also some human aspects that seem appropriate to mention or at least note as see also such as The Mosquito and LRAD. The connection to using these technologies with humans is not something made up, it's in several sources, but I do think it would be appropriate to split out the weapon aspect to the sonic weapon article and keep the acoustic harassment article focused to where the sources cover it in depth.

A big part of the problem is that voice to skull was redirected to electronic harassment, which is something quite different. Now that I've found more appropriate targets we can redirect Voice-to-Skull to the correct article, its is already discussed in Microwave auditory effect. Sonic weapon would be fine too. Problem solved. Of course I can't do this because an abusive admin has reflexively protected the article title (out of process) instead of engaging in rational discussion. Such is life.

There is no basis for restricting my abilities to edit legitimate article subject in my userspace and allegations of my being part of some conspiracy or off wiki-campaign are daft. Maybe Guy is hearing voices? Best to seek out professional help in those circumstances. But again, these are legitimate subjects, I don't really think they fall into the realm of pseudoscience, and we should have no difficulty dealing with the subject properly (again there are EXISTING articles that address many aspects of these subjects) we just need to rein in the craziness, delusional paranoia, and dishonest bullying so we can work through the subject matter rationally and reasonably. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Appears to be a duplicate of User:Candleabracadabra/sandbox. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The Wired articles are of no use to an encyclopedic article. As the author states, they are merely a collection of amusing urban myths and certainly cannot be used as the basis for any article on something "real" such as sonic weapons. There is nothing new of value in the article, so it can be safely deleted. GDallimore (Talk) 22:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, we generally give a fair amount of leeway to material in userspace, I think. I myself have some proto-articles cluttering up my userspace... If it was obviously not anything to do with an encyclopedia -- a list of your school friends, pictures of your cat -- that'd be different, but it kind of looks and feels like it could an actual article someday, if some more refs can be scared up. That's a reasonable use of userspace I think.


 * If it's disruptive that's different. The nominator speaks of an "offsite POV-push, with very obvious co-ordination between accounts". If that's true then we have different problem. I'd want more details on that, though. I'm not up on the personalities and politics of this, so I'm not gonna vote, but my inclination is to see what develops. If the article creator scares up enough material and refs to make a decent article, then no problem. If the article creator messes around with it in his userspace forever, then no problem. If the article creator tries to repeatedly publish an unacceptable article, then problem. My inclination would be to chill and wait. Herostratus (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment It looks like we have further material on this phenomenon at Tinfoil hat. Maybe that would be a good place to put the info? 70.36.142.114 (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Herostratus but I'm going to say keep the userspace draft. The material doesn't seem to be suitable as a stand-alone article at present (notability) but the verifiability aspects seem OK so the material could be merged elsewhere or could be developed into an article. There is no BLP or "attack page" problem. In small part, the draft is documenting what a few people believe (most people might think the belief is irrational) and that can be fine if it is kept in a neutral perspective. I do not think the draft is advancing a "fictional construct". If there are reliable sources saying the adherents are "mainly mentally ill" it is important that this aspect should be included. Likewise if there is evidence that the DoD document is fictitious in its existence or content. Thincat (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Herostratus. Nothing wrong with using user space for building an article that is not yet ready for prime time.--GRuban (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2014 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.