Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega Foundation

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. - brenneman ^{L} 02:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mega Foundation

Mega Foundation is up for deletion as an advert for a non-notable society, as well as probable vanity. 712 Google hits, many of which are unrelated to this society, despite its alleged press coverage (the citations in the article all point to society's webpage anyway). See also this AfD. My advice is:

• Delete Byrgenwulf 10:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN homebrew society. Self-promotion. Wikipedia is not a list of things made up at school Mensa meetings. -- GWO
• Delete spam, non-notable Dlyons493 Talk 12:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - This is a notable organization. I've added citations to verify that. DrL 13:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

CommentThree out of those four citations are not about the society, but about one of its founders. When I suggested to DrL that the society article be merged with the founder's bio, she said that it would make more sense to delete the article altogether than merge it(see the talk page). That's why it's here. Byrgenwulf 13:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment - While Langan is the focus of some of these articles, the foundation is mentioned in each by name. I just included this to establish verification from an outside source. This is a non-profit foundation and not a high IQ society. DrL 14:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment and? Just because the foundation is mentioned doesn't make it notable. It just proves that it exists. BigHaz 23:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as Vanispamcruftisement. Anville 14:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. No comment. danielmryan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.228.35.112 (talk • contribs).
  • AfD is not a vote. If you do not say why you think this should be kept, the closing admin will be well within his/her rights to ignore your recommendation altogether. — Haeleth Talk 21:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Langan. Do not keep. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I would like to make a note here that some individuals are targeting Chris Langan and any group that has any connection to him. They have already succeeded in deleting the CTMU article and the Mega Society article. They are also trying to delete The Ultranet, Mega Foundation, Ronald Hoeflin, Nathan Haselbauer and possibly others. It doesn't seem right that one clique should have such a great influence on Wikipedia. DrL 18:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• That sounds rather paranoid, and doesn't accord with the facts. I nominated this and the Ultranet, while other people nominated those other articles entirely unbeknownst to be. What I think has happened is that the CTMU fiasco has opened a can of worms; all the non-notable, vanity-ridden articles in this particular "genre" are being rooted out by all manner of people - not a "clique" - and listed for deletion because they are not encyclopaedic. Byrgenwulf 19:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• It doesn't sound paranoid at all. Why don't you tell me why Prometheus_Society was not attacked, but The Ultranet was? Similar groups, but The Ultranet is larger and was mentioned in several press articles (whereas PS was not). (Whatever happened to WP:V???) DrL 21:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment DrL, no-one and nothing is being "attacked" here. I don't really care about high IQ societies, personally, but I do care about Wikipedia being used by people to glorify themselves, their lovers, or their organisations by writing articles about them and then demanding they stay here on such tenuous grounds. I run a small non-profit organisation, and by the standards you are applying, DrL, I could write an article about it and put it here (it's been in the press a few times etc. etc.). But I don't, because I have self-respect, and because I am not vain enough to need Wikipedia to somehow "legitimise" or "verify" my organisation, even if I make the feeble excuse that "the article is to inform people": my organisation does not merit an encyclopaedia article at the moment, and I have the self confidence to admit that. I think the dignified thing to do is to wait until someone else sees the group as having sufficient import to merit an encyclopaedia article about it: this isn't a directory, a search engine, or a "who's who"; it is a reference work, a tertiary source. And, an encyclopaedia article about an NPO should discuss its myriad achievements and the contributions it has made to society (that determines its "notability"). I see none of that in the Mega Foundation article, which simply reads like a blurb in a business directory, with links to a website at the bottom. If you're so concerned, DrL, about all the other articles on these groups, why don't you nominate them for an AfD? Unless, that is, this "DrL" account is solely restricted to commenting on a certain individual, his ideas, and his clubs. Byrgenwulf 06:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - This is an objective entry about this organization. The reason that I kept it brief was to maintain that objectivity, keep it informational and not make it sound like a promo. Your post above is ad hominem and out of line. DrL 11:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me in what way what I wrote above is an "ad hominem" and "out of line"? I certainly didn't intend that. Byrgenwulf 12:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• It is impossible for me to comprehend how mature and highly intelligent men can involve themselves in such detrimental "boy/fights" of this sort; specially, when they are "supposed" to be HiQ'ers. This personal barrage leaves no one untouched of scorn. It is absurd to delete anyones serious work on these undignified grounds.You must bear in mind that: a theory is just a theory, a theory it is. Joely R. Villalba —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.234.90.44 (talk • contribs).

Wikipedia is not a repository of people's "theories". It is an encyclopaedia, which means it is a tertiary source. But I must say, I agree with the comment on the "high IQ" subculture's behaviour: I would never have expected this...please, though, do not make the mistake of thinking that everyone with a high IQ is necessarily involved with these clubs or their petty squabbling for precedence; these groups have a tiny fraction of the membership they statistically could have - maybe that's why they feel they need to use an encyclopaedia to advertise. Byrgenwulf 06:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment to the admins ... and anyone here to vote or discuss. Please consider the history and actions of this AfD nominator. As you can see from Byrgenwulf's contribution history, his very first edit to Wikipedia was on July 2, 2006. He made a few innocuous edits (and patiently waited a week) before beginning his totally obsessive onslaught against the CTMU article (and everything else related to Chris Langan, including many high IQ societies and high IQ individuals). In light of this evidence of his single-mindedness and the other specific deceptive tactics that are outlined by Tim Smith on the AfD review page, this user should be permanently banned for making a mockery of Wikipedia's AfD policy and creating general mayhem. DrL 14:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Response: This seems to have become a massive campaign now to thoroughly discredit me: if any passing admins could do something about it, I would be grateful. "Singlemindedness", DrL? Compare your editing history and mine...see how many different articles I have worked on, look at the article I am busy with in my sandbox etc. Drl, on the other hand has only edited articles to do with Langan, as has been pointed out by many over the past few days (not that that isn't her right, of course). And as for "deceptiveness"...Tim Smith never said I was being deceptive, he actually expressed willingness to work with me because I seemed the most co-operative among the editors who wished the CTMU to go. I think "deceptive", DrL, might however be used to describe linking to an out of date editing history, as you have done above. I am not making mayhem, but trying to make Wikipedia a legitimately better encyclopaedia, not by filling it with vanispamcruftisement, but by cleaning up articles that need help, writing new ones on neglected topics, and so on. And I actually apologised to DrL (see her talk page) for if what I have done has caused upset, because I strongly believe DrL is personally involved in many of these articles (I could be wrong, but an apology is not out of place, even then). Please stop this nonsense now, DrL. Byrgenwulf 15:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Byrgenwulf, you have been outed for exactly what you are, an anti-Langan critic using Wikipedia to carry out a personal vendetta and making a mockery of the project in the process. Anyone can examine your contribution history and read about your underhanded tactics on the AfD review page. They can also read your comments to others ...

Bergenwulf to Tox on this page: "The CTMU and its proponents have blown their chances with me now, after Asmodeus' slanderous comments and lies about me."

Asmodeus wrote nothing "slanderous" [sic] about you except to point out your many mistakes that gave you away as a philosophical neophyte. You have discredited only yourself. DrL 15:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh rubbish. I merely refused to indulge Asmodeus in a proper discussion on the issues at that particular time, leaving him to have the last word in many cases, which may create the illusion that he was right; discussions on philosophy of science take much space and time, and the purpose of Wikipedia is not to host them. Moreover, many of the condescending remarks Asmodeus made about me were actually on points which may be disputed (I merely chose not to dispute them there, but have expressed my willingness to do elsewhere). This comment by a world renowned mathematician to one of Asmodeus' sneers illustrates my point that Asmodeus is not necessarily right in his reading of the situation. Byrgenwulf 19:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"It is impossible for me to comprehend how mature and highly intelligent men can involve themselves in such detrimental "boy/fights" of this sort; specially, when they are "supposed" to be HiQ'ers. This personal barrage leaves no one untouched of scorn. It is absurd to delete anyones serious work on these undignified grounds.You must bear in mind that: a theory is just a theory, a theory it is. Joely R. Villalba" KEEP —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.234.84.176 (talk • contribs).

• Thank you for stopping by; please discuss here rather than the article's talk page. DrL 15:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with The Ultranet, then copyedit mercilessly. I don't care which is the target article, but they appear more or less notable. Luna Santin 17:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• This is a reasonable suggestion as there is a lot of overlap. I would suggest Mega Foundation as the main article and The Ultranet as a redirect to Mega Foundation. DrL 19:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per luna santin. -Quiddity 20:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. This org doesn't seem notable to me, and I am concerned about possible manipulation of this AfD vote. I note that from her contribs and from other internal evidence, DrL (talk • contribs) appears to be "Dr. Gina Lynne LoSasso", to whom the megafoundation.org website is registered. If so, I think it would be well for these users to disclose their identity, if for no other reason than to prevent giving the impression that they are shilling. To prevent possible misunderstanding, note that I acknowledge that it is not always inappropriate for X to edit and article about himself/herself/her organization, but in such cases, in my view, common sense and good manners dictate that X should disclose his/her identity. I believe that good edits will be easily recognized as such. But here we are talking about edits which seem to several users including myself to be misleading or unbalanced, and in such cases it may be appropriate to inquire about the IRL identity of the users who made those edits. DrL complained " I would like to make a note here that some individuals are targeting Chris Langan and any group that has any connection to him" This remark suggests--- at least to me--- that she may not fully appreciate the magnitude of the problem at Wikipedia with vanity cruft. I see no reason to think that anyone is "targeting high IQ organizations", but I do see good reason to try to remove vanity cruft. I think this goal would be best served in the case of Mega Foundation by deleting the article. ---CH 22:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see also two AfD votes for related articles (both now deleted)

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega Society

and see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ultranet for a related current AfD. ---CH 22:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• That is not my name and I would very much appreciate it if you take your baseless accusations elsewhere. For your information, this was the fifth initial I tried when I set up my account. But thank you very much for asking. Wikipedia also thanks you for coming by, casting your vote and adding your misinformation to the pool. Hail, Wikipedia! DrL 23:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

DrL, if I am wrong about that, please provide enough verifiable information about your IRL identity to convince me. This is not an accusation I make lightly and if I am wrong I would certainly want the opportunity to correct the record! The problem is that the internal evidence is to my mind so strong, and your denial so weak, that I don't feel that in good faith I can simply accept your denial without being presented with any contrary evidence. ---CH 01:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Enough, already. User CH/Hillman has no right to demand anyone's personal identity, and evidently fails to understand what a "shill" is. Strangely, the definition is right there on the Wikipedia page to which he linked above. Here's how "shill"is defined on that page: "A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services who pretends no association to the seller and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer."

The person who wrote this article is neither selling goods and services - the Mega Foundation is a nonprofit (charitable purpose) entity obligated to spend everything it takes in on its own maintenance, with nothing left over to put in anyone's pocket - nor in any way playing the role of "seller" or "customer", "enthusiastically" or otherwise. All he/she is doing is describing the Mega Foundation as it is described in its own articles of incorporation. So "shilling" is out of the question. It's just a nasty accusation designed to abuse the deletion process.

The Wikipedia page continues: "In some cases, the members of an organization or the employees of a company may monitor and/or participate in public discussions and groups. Such people are not shills, since they don't attempt to mislead others."

Now, here's an important news flash for Hillman and those who are citing his abusive opinions. Here at Wikipedia, using a handle is not considered "misleading others". If it were, then 99% of the people on this site would be "misleading others". So to establish "shilling", we'd need to find some piece of misleading information in the article. But CH/Hillman doesn't seem to have done that.

Wikipedia's anti-shilling guidelines are sound. They prevent hucksters from using Wikipedia to fatten their bank accounts and enhance their personal prospects and the value of their personal interests. But that clearly isn't the case here. If anyone wishes to argue otherwise, the first thing he/she needs to do is substantiate his/her allegations.

But of course, if that were going to happen, it would already have happened. Asmodeus 19:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Asmodeus, if you had read further in that article, you would find here the following sentence: "In online discussion media, such as message boards, discussion forums, and newsgroups, shills may pose as independent experts, satisfied consumers, or “innocent” parties with specific opinions in order to further the interests of an organization in which they have an interest, such as a commercial vendor or special-interest group." Now, whatever the articles of incorporation of the Mega foundation might be, and even taking into account that Wikipedia is not a message board or a "blog" (despite how some people choose to use it), the MF surely counts as a "special interest group". Therefore, someone who is affiliated to that group, particularly in an official capacity, and acts in a forum such as Wikipedia in manner promoting the interests of that group (like demanding that it have an article about it when it hardly merits it), without declaring their interests, is shilling. By definition. Moreover, DrL was caught posting links in the "Chicken or the Egg" article, posting links to the Mega Foundation website which ask for money to view (proof: here is her edit; this is the link she posted). Now, I'm not sure where that money goes to, whether it is the Mega Foundation's coffers or Langan's own pocket, and nor do I care. But I do think that this action constitutes a gross abuse of Wikipedia for monetary gain. And, once again, shilling, as well as "link spam", Vanispamcruftisement and countless other offences. Byrgenwulf 20:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Oh, please. I'd linked to that page because it had a table of contents which showed that the cited article was indeed included. DrL 20:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

See the Ultranet AfD for my response, I'm not going to have a parallel conversation. The page itself contains no table of contents, merely a link to one, and so I do not understand why DrL could not have linked to that page instead. Byrgenwulf 20:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment That would have been my preference, but the TOC was a pdf page that did not identify the book. So I linked to the page that talked about the book, and also linked to the TOC. True, there was a link to purchase the book. But I couldn't find a better link and wanted to add a citation. WP:AGF, please. DrL 20:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment User Byrgenwulf has already been caught massively abusing the deletion process. He has a blatant vendetta against Christopher Langan and everything for which Langan stands and with which he is associated. (Byrgenwulf has nominated a number of articles for deletion in the last several days, and Langan is the common denominator in all of them.) That is what he is doing here, and how this AfD was motivated. This user (Byrgenwulf) is in the deceptive habit of demanding verification for everything he disputes - that is, everything he can dispute - until he manages to identify a verificative link which he can paint as violating some aspect of Wikipedia policy (all nonprofit entities solicit donations; they need to do so in order to survive, and nobody is allowed to personally profit from this). This gives him a pretext for expanding his attack, preferably with accompaniment by an unwitting chorus which he has actively misled and recruited from inappropriate sectors of the Wikipedia community. Regarding Byrgenwulf's spurious "shilling" allegations, people who post articles on Wikipedia are virtually all interested in the topics of those articles, and therefore belong to "special interest groups" associated with those topics. Ordinarily, they do not post a detailed confession regarding the exact nature of their interest; it is sufficient that they maintain neutrality, verify their edits, and maintain relevance to the topic at hand. User Byrgenwulf is simply attempting, once again, to twist and misrepresent standard practice at Wikipedia in order to gain a dishonest advantage over his victims. (What a surprise.) Asmodeus 21:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Once again, Asmodeus, you are blatantly wrong, and seemingly trying desperately to distort the facts and attack my character because I have raised uncomfortable issues. Not all the articles I have nominated for deletion have been related to Langan - unless he is also into "chaos magic" and a collaborator in the development of Hyperwarp 6D, another crackpot theory of everything which just got deleted (much less acrimoniously than the CTMU - in fact no-one opposed its deletion). I merely wish to see Wikipedia cleared of the plague of vanispamcruftisement from which it has been suffering, and it seems many other users also feel that its purpose is not to provide a worldwide open source "blog" for people to post their achievements here. And Wikipedia is also not here as a platform for NPOs, no matter how noble their aims, to solicit funding. Byrgenwulf 21:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It is also insulting to all the other participants in this AfD to insinuate that I have been manipulating them and to call them an "unwitting chorus" as you did, as if they couldn't make their minds up for themselves. I would certainly take offence at that. Byrgenwulf 21:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'm simply informing people of the facts. Byrgenwulf registered at Wikipedia on July 2, 2006, three weeks ago, and launched an all-out editing/AfD attack on Christopher Langan, his notable and widely-publicized theory the CTMU (which Byrgenwulf was quickly shown not to comprehend), the Mega Foundation, the Ultranet, and so on ad nauseam. Byrgenwulf even hurled himself into an AfD against an IQ society to which Langan once belonged, within minutes of its inception through the offices of a prior confederate. To illicitly gain support for his personal blitzkrieg against the CTMU, Byrgenwulf transparently misled and recruited people sympathetic to his viewpoint from areas of the Wikipedia web complex not directly related to the topic of that article, tarring it in exactly the way we see here. This is all a matter of record. With all due respect, I ask that Byrgenwulf at least try to tell the truth. Asmodeus 21:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Are you really insinuating that the members of Wikipedia:Project Physics are all blithering idiots who can so easily be misled by such a stupid, incompetent fool as you make me out to be? For example, the eminent mathematician Arthur Rubin, who said that the CTMU would be credible only among pseudo-intellectuals, and caught you out on grounds of factual errancy in one of your other rants against me? I have never been "shown not to comprehend" that silly "theory", because I have not wanted to indulge in a debate on it here (my snide remarks on the talk page notwithstanding), but I have repeatedly extended an invitation to anyone willing to defend it to discuss it elsewhere, an offer which has been ignored, repeatedly. Moreover, my efforts in the CTMU article led to the discovery of a "walled garden" of vanity, advertising and illicit soliciting of funds (the "chicken and egg" article wasn't the only place that fundraising link was posted), none of which Wikipedia exists to support. Looking at the contributions of DrL and Asmodeus should prove that they are both solely interested, here at Wikipedia, in editing articles pertaining to Langan and his great and wondrous achievements. That is a matter of record; what Asmodeus has said is a matter of opinion, I am afraid, and a grossly slanted opinion at that. I would be ashamed of myself, if I were Asmodeus, carrying on like this. But perhaps that's just a peculiarity on my part. Byrgenwulf 22:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• You certainly succeeded in misleading some Wikipedia:Project Physics members. Again, this is a matter of record (you deliberately misrepresented a philosophical theory as a "pseudoscientific" theory of "physics" to them after being repeatedly corrected on that score). Arthur Rubin - who has not actually demonstrated any familiarlty with the CTMU - is apparently one of your unwitting victims. You certainly should be ashamed of yourself, if only for contriving to compromise the reputation of somebody being promoted, whether justifiably or not, as "an eminent mathematician". I would not have edited the CTMU article at all save for your discombobulated attack on it, and the same probably goes for others. You most certainly have been "shown not to comprehend" the CTMU, and yes indeed, it began right on the talk page for the original article. Not unrelatedly, there is just one thing the matter with your "repeated invitation" to "discuss the CTMU elsewhere": you clearly don't know enough about it to make it worth anyone's while, and you argue in such a way that such a discussion would be like trying to pin down a squirming eel. (Perhaps you could persuade Mr. Rubin to stake his reputation on such a discussion? Now, that might actually intrigue somebody.) Asmodeus 22:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know Rubin from a bar of soap; moreover, I'm sure he has better ways to spend his time than disputing crackpot theories. Suffice it to say anyone bothered to read through all of this verbiage will soon come to understand what is afoot here, despite Asmodeus' ongoing rants. Byrgenwulf 23:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and Hillman; WP:VSCA again. Love those reliable sources: Muscle & Fitness indeed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Langan article; this fails WP:ORG. --McGeddon 12:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Langan or delete. No evidence this is in any way significant Just zis Guy you know? 12:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Massmatto 16:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep An informative and rather minimal article on a notable and well-verified topic. Asmodeus 19:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Notable to the extent of something under 250 unique Google hits :-) Just zis Guy you know? 21:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. As for DrL's claim that these pages are being "attacked", they are being "attacked" because they are a walled garden of non-notable vanity pages. -- NORTH ^talk 22:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above or merge as a second best but viable option. GassyGuy 06:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, clearly, as a walled garden of non-notable vanity. Some of the participants in this debate should be ashamed of their behaviour, naming no names. There's a very good study of British high-IQ societies somewhere that looks into just why so many of them end up as small, paranoid cliques with far-right, eugenicist ideas: I'll have to look that out some time. Vizjim 08:23, 24 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.