Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ET Might Write, Not Radiate

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 00:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ET Might Write, Not Radiate

This is unencyclopedic, poorly titled, and conjectural, not to mention bald-faced vanity. If this information belongs on Wikipedia at all, it should be integrated into the SETI article. Binadot 02:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Okay, this is clearly a case of inept academic vanity. The author of this page is User:24.44.208.18, who appears to be the same as User:Cnmirose. Cnmirose openly admits to being Christopher Rose (yeah, he created an article about himself in the Wikipedia namespace), a (non-notable) professor who wrote a (non-notable) article entitled "ET Might Write, Not Radiate", which is the subject of the article in question. When I placed a VFD notice on the article, he removed it, commenting "DO NOT delete". He doesn't seem to understand our policy on vanity. You'd think a professor would know better. Binadot 02:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research. Gazpacho 02:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I guess I do not understand Wiki conventions. I created the entries (for myself and Gregory Wright) on the (mistaken?) assumption that links to authors was reasonable (see, for instance, the link to Robert Freitas which appears in the SETI article where my original edits were inserted). However, I agree that the entry was certainly "non-encyclopedic." And though the "(non-notable) professor" comment is certainly true, :) I must admit I'm a bit confused about the "(non notable) paper" comment -- the work appeared on the cover of Nature Magazine. Regardless, thank you for the education, though I must say Binadot's tone seems a tad strident (I did not realize that someone else had put up a request for deletion -- I thought *I* had mistakenly tried to delete the wrong entry -- so there was no intention to subvert the wiki process). Cheers -- Chris Rose Chris 03:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Merely because an article has been in a notable publication doesn't mean that the article itself is inherently notable. The contents may be notable, and I think in this case they are, but they don't require a separate article. I'd dump the contents into SETI, perhaps into a new subsection. Sorry to come down on you so hard, but we have a strong policy on vanity, for obvious reasons. If a topic is notable, we'd prefer it to be documented by an impartial third party. I would have been more relaxed about things if the VFD notice hadn't been removed, and if I hadn't discovered the Christopher Rose and Gregory Wright articles. Binadot 03:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks -- consider me educated :) Is there a way to expedite the removal of the three pages Christopher Rose Gregory Wright and ET Might Write, Not Radiate (as well as the misspelled version which caused me to mistakenly delete your vfd ET Might Wright, Not Radiate -- if I had a dime for every time I've done that mispelling, I could probably buy myself coffee for a week :) ). I *AM* the sole author, I've removed the links in the SETI article I edited, and I now understand that such entries cannot be taken lightly. So I'm all for an expedited removal schedule. Also, since you seem knowledgeable about wiki-matters, if you could take a peek at my additions in the "Probe" section -- just search SETI for my name -- and advise, that would be really helpful. I also have a question -- how do entries like Robert Freitas get posted/written? Let's just say that the notability quotient you implicitly cite is not high for that page. :) However, I have no objection to it since for someone looking for work in the area, his stuff is useful. Hence, if such pages for Greg and me would be helpful to folks, it would be useful to know how to get them written. Of course, cites to our home pages in the SETI article at appropriate places would probably be just as good or better. Cheers, Chris 04:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research, poorly titled, too technical. — JIP | Talk 07:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Chris. Hamster Sandwich 08:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with SETI. --malathion ^talk 06:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - original research, questionable at that - Tεxτurε 19:11, 3 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.