Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Self-contradiction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self-contradiction

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought - This seems to be a personal essay Neilajh 00:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

  • AI created the article in view of apparent need for it to exist - there was a link to it AI noticed while browsing semiotics related articles (IIRC) and it was marked red (a double bracketed term leading to non-existing article). It can surely be improved and various terms might need further explanation or maybe I lack proper scientific vocabulary for some concepts and therefore you think these are some invented or taken out of the hat terms. You stated it well - it seems to be a personal essay, just like you seem to me to be a newbie who recently read the deletion policy and is in overzealous stage. Oh,BTW - your sentence is self-contradictory - every article on Wikipedia written by a single person is a personal essay on some subject. There are new technologies appearing every day - are you going to delete articles aboot them on a notion that they constitute a description of original thought? Again, self-contradiction. Fortunately, I managed to define it, although it should be impossible by definition to define self-contradiction. I guess there is more in me than it seems to. Listen to the song "As A Child" by "Suzanne Vega" (or read the lyrics on vega.net) to get my point even harder. Milk and kisses! 01:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Agquarx (talk • contribs).
    • Please read Wikipedia:No_original_research. We can have articles on new technologies, once they have been written about elsewhere in reliable sources. Wikipedia summarizes knowledge available elsewhere, we don't create anything new as that is not the purpose of an encylopedia. --Xyzzyplugh 02:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete OR. Nom is right. Fan-1967 01:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I can almost hear Geogre saying "Deep Thoughts". This article cites no sources, and presents a completely idiosyncratic view of the topic. There's probably an encyclopaedia article to be had on this subject, but this most certainly is not it. Nor is it a decent stub that can be expanded. Delete and let the redlinks stand. Uncle G 01:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete violates Wikipedia:No_original_research --Xyzzyplugh 02:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Now at least I know there are some people who personally cannot stand me here and will do anything to delete any content I enter - even if they are too stupid to notice that the joke is on them. There is only one way to deal with bullies - a gun. If you are collecting my articles, you must to be shot to save humanity, per your own definition - a Darwin Award. I just won't contribute and stop funding. I wonder if you will still be unable to comprehend what I wrote in ten years of technological development... Just to make you less sure of yourself, I advice you to read Antinomy and Self-reference. Oh, I have no idea to whom you are refering by "Deep Thoughts" producer, but being a jackass for no reason (yes, I do know you mean to insult me by comparing with some scape-goat, call that mind-reading. Go fuck yourself and meditate for an hour on the nature of Self-Esteem in context of In-Joke. Because I said so, simpleton. No, I don't care if you delete - I have backup and don't give a damn, except the article does explain what the term means in self-explanatory terms. I wasted too much time arguing with idiots and will now stop as you seem to me have a great experience in grabbing people to your level. When I was still playing Magic:the Gathering we called such people rules-lawyers - players who were to devote all the time in the world to argue some nonsensical ruling instead of simply playing the game. By your misguided interpretation, adding articles to Wikipedia is meant to be based on typing them out word by word from some encyclopedia printed on dead trees. And to think a British friend warned me not expect much from a thing run mostly by Americans... One more thing - how can one gather any certainty without Self-Reflexion is not it either OR. I'm going to lookup some more Self-Nomenclature as they seem to be amusing and then return to choking the bishop to a bukkake movie my lass Miranda McKennitt and John Thompson team made. You should try some Ego-Surfing sometimes - I guess it is still a dead link? How exciting! --{ A.A } 02:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah. Your wikilawyering fails, so you resort to personal attacks. That'll show us. Delete and ban user. Danny Lilithborne 22:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This article should be kept. --Xrblsnggt 03:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Uncle G (with an "it had to be done" nod of appreciation to Xrblsnggt). -- H·G (words/works) 05:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research and POV essay, bordering on patent nonsense. --MCB 06:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- GWO
  • Keep -- GWO
My initial reaction: "What? Did he vote, and then someone else put his username?" My reaction a minute later: "Bwahahaha! That's awesome!" -- Kicking222 19:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete I see no reason why this doesn't qualify for {{db-nonsense}}. Ryūlóng 07:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and consider applying another vandal block to Agquarx (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) Phr (talk) 09:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, nonsense. Sandstein 11:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete nonsense Computerjoe's talk 11:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Deep Thoughts: (Time delay, sorry). Delete for being like cosmic and like intelligence by artifice which is artifice-ial intelligence man wow oh wow. Oh, we could call it "original research," but we could also call it idiosyncratic or much worse. Geogre 11:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete it does look like an essay Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 12:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think we have a policy for AI-created articles, but this one is apparently OR. -- Mikeblas 17:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Clubmarx 18:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, because patent nonsense contains too much information to be encyclopedic. Smerdis of Tlön 19:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this thoroughly incomprehensible lengthy turgid paragraph, without prejudice toward the future creation of a sensible article on the topic of self-contradiction, which might well be capable of supporting an encyclopedic, notable article... this just isn't one. *Dan T.* 23:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as word salad. NawlinWiki 00:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - it's a near perfect example of word salad. I wish the author could see it for what it is. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 23:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete: nonsensical word salad. — getcrunk what?! 23:52, 23 July 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Self-contradiction_abea.html"