Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/False Doppler (2nd Nomination)

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The result of the debate was Speedy Keep after nomination withdrawn. Xoloz 17:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] False Doppler

A term invented by some wikipedia contributor--as it says in the article. This page is a borderline vanity page, and it is definitely a neologism. As such, it deserves to be deleted. Wikipedia is a reference page. There should only be articles that refer to objects, people and concepts that exist outside of wikipedia. 86.138.6.46 22:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)I had no idea that this article actually had a good version once. I just saw the current revision and totally flipped at how awful it was. I change my vote to revert.

Note: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/False Doppler for first round of AFD.

• Delete. WP:NOR. There's a place for this kind of essay and that's Eric Baird's own web site, NOT Wikipedia. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Man, I got taken for a sucker. Strong keep per ExtremeUnction. I think I have a bridge to go buy... --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 01:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Sweet hopping Jeebus. This is ugly.

For anyone who wants to vote on this entry, here are some salient facts:

Fact 1: The article was created on July 9th, 2005. From the creation of the article up until October 3rd, the article appeared to be a normal scientific wikipedia article. Interested readers are cordially invited to examine the early drafts of the article.

Fact 2: The article was nominated for deletion on September 24th, and was ruled as a "Keep" on October 2nd. On October 3rd, the article was edited by an unsigned user, and, for the first time, the article makes the claim that the term was invented by the article's original author. Prior to the AfD vote (and subsequent "keep" ruling), the article mentioned that the effect was described by Oliver Lodge, a 19th century scientist. Since that time, the article has been systematically altered by a series of anonymous users to make the article appear as unprofessional (and as AfD-worthy) as possible.

Fact 3: The talk page of the article is instructive. It is filled with shrill accusations and chest-beating, levelled at the original author. The original author of the article cites his sources and generally makes a credible argument for his position. The person levelling the accusation...does not.

Fact 4: Googling on the phrase "False Doppler" turns up 314 hits. Examining the various webpages which turn up indicates a common theme: The "false doppler" effect involves motion perpendicular to a stationary observer. That is, moving neither towards nor away from the stationary observer, but rather moving "transversely," as a car, on the road, driving past you, on the sidewalk. Which is what the original "false doppler" article was also about.

Conclusion: I smell a crank. And it's not the original author of the article. If the person who put this article up for nomination isn't the same person nominated it previously, and then took a steaming dump all over the article and its associated talk page after the original AfD failed, I'll eat my hat.

And I have a BIG hat.

So. Keep the article, restore it to its 17:34, September 5, 2005 revision, and block the crank that's using Wikipedia to harass someone who knows how to cite a source. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 01:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep and revert per Extreme Unction. Saberwyn 03:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and revert per Extreme Unction. I'm giving the original author a Barnstar. Someone please report the vandal. Durova 03:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. I've reverted all the vandalism out of the article. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 05:52, 12 November 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.