Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Tech (philosophy) (3rd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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 Merge to Frank R. Wallace. Note that this article must be rewritten to be a neutral description of this person and his ideas, and it must also reference reliable, third-party sources that are not related to Frank R. Wallace or his publishing company. Wikipedia articles are not the place for an uncritical description of this person or his ideas channeled directly from his books. Both the Neo-Tech (philosophy) and Frank R. Wallace articles were originally created and their text remains substantially written by a now-banned user whose express and only purpose on Wikipedia was a co-ordinated, sustained campaign to push a particular point-of-view across political and philosophical articles.
The text from the current Neo-Tech article cannot simply be copied into the Frank R. Wallace article. It must be added only as a neutral description of Neo-Tech that is proportionate to a well-balanced, well-sourced article on this person and his ideas and activities, with reference to sources unrelated to him. Anything that does not meet these conditions, which are essential to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, will be deleted. The keep result of the prior deletion discussions were contingent on the cleanup of this article to conform to Wikipedia policies, and were based on the notability the subject insofar as it is what some commenters described as a "mail-order scam" and as "cultist crackpots"; yet the article currently mentions nothing whatsoever of these activities or views. —Centrx→talk • 08:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Neo-Tech (philosophy) (3rd nomination)
No peer-reviewed sources on either side of the issue. Also, WP:NEO.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bi (talk • contribs).
- Speedy Close No AfD notice on the article and from the looks of it, the article is locked from editing due to an edit war. This is a content dispute, not an AfD issue... besides, we don't need peer-reviewed sources for every article to be verified.--Isotope23 16:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep There was just a AfD earlier this month. This article is based on primary sources. It is perfectly legitimate to cite authors of books as a sources about what tbeir own own books say. Just because there are no secondary sources available, it doesn't mean the article should be deleted. And, Neo-Tech is definitely noteable. WP:NEO (neologism) doesn't even apply. JoeMystical 17:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment people interested in retaining this article should probably try and find some secondary sources. Basing an article strictly on primary sources is not best practice.--Isotope23 17:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Here is the deal. One guy named Frank Wallace developed the philosophy. He published his own books. Since then other authors people have been writing about the philosophy, and Wallace has published their books and articles for them with his own publishing company. I don't know if the latter would be considered secondary sources since they're technically not self-published, but it's all that's available. There are no books that go into describing Neo-Tech that are not published by Wallace's publishing company, that I'm aware of. JoeMystical 19:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Tried, didn't work. Care to suggest something better? Bi 20:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment people interested in retaining this article should probably try and find some secondary sources. Basing an article strictly on primary sources is not best practice.--Isotope23 17:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep -- The article should stay but be made more interesting. It is a collection of citations from two or three books, and that doesn't qualify as a good article on a philosophy.--SidiLemine 17:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hi SidiLemine, if you oppose the motion to delete, would you consider indicating this by saying Keep. Thanks, Addhoc 17:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Cheers Addhoc this is, like any fast-learning experience, getting pretty painful. I find it hard to believe that poeple would get THAT heated on an encyclopedia article. Did you notice that the other wiki's article on NT are exact replicas?--SidiLemine 17:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Find an article on a school and nominate it for deletion... you'll see just how heated people can get here...--Isotope23 17:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- You mean on the foreign language Wikipedias? Yes, it looks like they were translated from this one. The French version looks just like it: [1] And the German: [2] JoeMystical 17:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'd understand that people get heated after you want to delete an article...; but to get angry at the bad editing of an article on which you wanted to participate (that should prove you deem the article worthy of existance) to the point you propose (3 times!) to delete it... Well, it's good to see people take the project at heart! By the way, It's just the french article that's a copy of this one. I quite like the portuguese one. Full text: "Neo-Tech is a philosophy similar to Objectivism. Its goal is to clear mysticism from the human mind". Plus a link to Pax Neo Tex (prank by Bi)--SidiLemine 18:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, Bi appears to be using Wikipedia to self-promote his joke web page. JoeMystical 18:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- And why would I even propose an AfD to delete my own link if I'm self-promoting? User:$yD: the first 2 AfDs were by other people, for other reasons. Bi 18:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- JoeMystical, I obviously didn't mean that. Please keep me out of your contest of bad faith. Bi, I didn't know that. Do you know what were the reasons? That could prove instructive for this time.--SidiLemine 18:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- VfD by Tony Sidaway: reason: "Original research, neologism. Obscure crackpot ideas."
- AfD: reason: Neo-Tech is a scam.
- You can see traces of them on the talk page, by the way. Bi 19:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. Your reason is that it is weighted on one side only, right? One thing I wanted to ask around for a moment is, when something is evident ("cats have four legs", say), at what point can you just say it without it being OR? Any idea where I can look?--SidiLemine 19:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- See the top of the page for my rationale for this AfD. Bi 19:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. Your reason is that it is weighted on one side only, right? One thing I wanted to ask around for a moment is, when something is evident ("cats have four legs", say), at what point can you just say it without it being OR? Any idea where I can look?--SidiLemine 19:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- JoeMystical, I obviously didn't mean that. Please keep me out of your contest of bad faith. Bi, I didn't know that. Do you know what were the reasons? That could prove instructive for this time.--SidiLemine 18:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- And why would I even propose an AfD to delete my own link if I'm self-promoting? User:$yD: the first 2 AfDs were by other people, for other reasons. Bi 18:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, Bi appears to be using Wikipedia to self-promote his joke web page. JoeMystical 18:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'd understand that people get heated after you want to delete an article...; but to get angry at the bad editing of an article on which you wanted to participate (that should prove you deem the article worthy of existance) to the point you propose (3 times!) to delete it... Well, it's good to see people take the project at heart! By the way, It's just the french article that's a copy of this one. I quite like the portuguese one. Full text: "Neo-Tech is a philosophy similar to Objectivism. Its goal is to clear mysticism from the human mind". Plus a link to Pax Neo Tex (prank by Bi)--SidiLemine 18:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Cheers Addhoc this is, like any fast-learning experience, getting pretty painful. I find it hard to believe that poeple would get THAT heated on an encyclopedia article. Did you notice that the other wiki's article on NT are exact replicas?--SidiLemine 17:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep Two AfD notices in a month is excessive. Addhoc 17:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)- Comment OK, you know what? I started this AfD because people were telling me on WT:NPOV that an article with only self-published sources is unencyclopedic and should go. And now you're saying that it shouldn't go. OK, how about this: if you really want to keep the article, please please please draft out a plan of how you would improve the article, instead of giving vague requests to other people to "find some secondary sources" and make the article "more interesting", yadda yadda yadda. Bi 18:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Anyone that told you an article is unencyclopedia because it has only self-published sources is wrong, under the condition that self-published sources are only used a sources for what the author of those sources are saying in an article about the authors of those sources. A book by Frank Wallace is a good source to show what a book what by Frank Wallace says. There's no disputing that. But, since Wallace's books are self-published they're probably not good as secondary sources, which means you couldn't use Wallace's opinion in a different article about something else. The article is not too bad as it is. The way to improve it would be to bring in more books by Wallace and others who write about Neo-Tech. The way to not improve it, is to do what you were doing, which is bringing in posts from anonymous people on forums and even a web page you made yourself as sources. That would be using self-published sources as secondary sources, which means using self-published sources in a article other than an article about the source itself. You made a web page called Pax-NeoTex which is making jokes about Neo-Tech. You can't use that as a source in the article, meaning it's not a reliable secondary source. You could only use that as a source if you're using it as a source about Pax-NeoTex if there were a Pax-NeoTex article. You're not a published expert on Neo-Tech, but a self-published jokester (that is, your web page is a joke page). JoeMystical 18:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment WP:NEO specifically disagrees with your argument: "Neologisms that are in wide use -- but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources -- are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." Plain and simple.
- Comment That's not applicable at all. Do you think Scientology is a neologism and therefore that article should be deleted? That's absurd. This article is not about a word, but about a philosophy represented by a word. JoeMystical 18:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Scientology does have peer-reviewed secondary sources discussing it, including a senior thesis. And you're splitting non-existent hairs: obviously when one discusses a word, one will discuss the meaning of the word. Bi 18:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment This article is not about the meaning of a word. WP:NEO does not apply whatseover. JoeMystical 18:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- CommentHere they go again. Bi, you must admit it is possible that there is no available documented criticism on these guys. If there's none, it just means they're not important enough to attract some. JoeMystical, the article as it is is not interesting and will strike almost anyone who stumble upon it as an ad. For the sake of your own cause, please consider making it look like there has been some other consideration than the books. Basically, Islam is defined by the Coran. But if you got out there and did the article only by citing it, it would look unapropriate. I know, it's not a cult, but you get my drift. Or else, consider changing it to articles about the books.--SidiLemine 18:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment If they're not important enough, then shouldn't the article be zapped, according to WP:Notable? And again, I refer to the quote above from WP:NEO. Bi 18:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Books about Neo-Tech are cited in other books, such as in Church Disputes Mediation (Gracewing Publishing 2003, page 287) and in Fresh Wisdom: Breakthrough to enlightenment, ISBN: 1419618555 (page 117), but as far as I know there are no criticisms. So the fact that it is cited, if not criticized, indicates some importance. Even without those citations, it's obviously noteable. JoeMystical 18:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- There's a line between being imporant enough to attract controversy and being notable. But I think I'm loosing my time here. How about we flag the article as "neutrality disputed", and wait until someone (Bi maybe?)edits a book against it? Then we'll have opposing secondary sources. No, more seriously: JoeMystical, you didn't answer my proposition.--SidiLemine 18:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- To improve the article? That's what I've been trying to do, but Bi here deletes the cited material. He's doesn't want the article to exist, but since he can't get rid of it, he tries to delete almost everything out of the article. JoeMystical 18:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- You're still not answering SidiLemine's question. Bi 18:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Which was? JoeMystical 18:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Not just to improve it, but to balance the canon citations with stuff not from the books or from the authors. --SidiLemine 19:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oh I see. Are you new to Wikipedia? It sounds like you're advocating what is called "original research" which means to put things in an article that can't be cited from reliable sources. See WP:OR. We can't put our own opinions, arguments, or criticisms in Wikipedia articles. That's a big no no. 19:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Not just to improve it, but to balance the canon citations with stuff not from the books or from the authors. --SidiLemine 19:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Which was? JoeMystical 18:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- You're still not answering SidiLemine's question. Bi 18:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- To improve the article? That's what I've been trying to do, but Bi here deletes the cited material. He's doesn't want the article to exist, but since he can't get rid of it, he tries to delete almost everything out of the article. JoeMystical 18:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment If they're not important enough, then shouldn't the article be zapped, according to WP:Notable? And again, I refer to the quote above from WP:NEO. Bi 18:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- CommentHere they go again. Bi, you must admit it is possible that there is no available documented criticism on these guys. If there's none, it just means they're not important enough to attract some. JoeMystical, the article as it is is not interesting and will strike almost anyone who stumble upon it as an ad. For the sake of your own cause, please consider making it look like there has been some other consideration than the books. Basically, Islam is defined by the Coran. But if you got out there and did the article only by citing it, it would look unapropriate. I know, it's not a cult, but you get my drift. Or else, consider changing it to articles about the books.--SidiLemine 18:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment This article is not about the meaning of a word. WP:NEO does not apply whatseover. JoeMystical 18:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Scientology does have peer-reviewed secondary sources discussing it, including a senior thesis. And you're splitting non-existent hairs: obviously when one discusses a word, one will discuss the meaning of the word. Bi 18:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment That's not applicable at all. Do you think Scientology is a neologism and therefore that article should be deleted? That's absurd. This article is not about a word, but about a philosophy represented by a word. JoeMystical 18:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment WP:NEO specifically disagrees with your argument: "Neologisms that are in wide use -- but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources -- are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." Plain and simple.
- Comment Anyone that told you an article is unencyclopedia because it has only self-published sources is wrong, under the condition that self-published sources are only used a sources for what the author of those sources are saying in an article about the authors of those sources. A book by Frank Wallace is a good source to show what a book what by Frank Wallace says. There's no disputing that. But, since Wallace's books are self-published they're probably not good as secondary sources, which means you couldn't use Wallace's opinion in a different article about something else. The article is not too bad as it is. The way to improve it would be to bring in more books by Wallace and others who write about Neo-Tech. The way to not improve it, is to do what you were doing, which is bringing in posts from anonymous people on forums and even a web page you made yourself as sources. That would be using self-published sources as secondary sources, which means using self-published sources in a article other than an article about the source itself. You made a web page called Pax-NeoTex which is making jokes about Neo-Tech. You can't use that as a source in the article, meaning it's not a reliable secondary source. You could only use that as a source if you're using it as a source about Pax-NeoTex if there were a Pax-NeoTex article. You're not a published expert on Neo-Tech, but a self-published jokester (that is, your web page is a joke page). JoeMystical 18:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, actually I am new. Please don't bite me. Or get sarcastic, for what it's worth. I never mentionned our opinions. I just said "stuff not from the books or from the authors". As in newspaper articles, sales review, that kind of stuff. I'm amazed at my own patience sometimes.--SidiLemine 19:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oh ok. I thought you meant our own opinions. I wasn't trying to be sarcastic or anything. Yes that would be good if they existed. All the books are published by Wallace's company and I don't know if they've released numbers on how many books have been sold. If so, you really couldnt use it as a secondary source. You could just say something like "they claim that 500,000 books on the philosophy have been sold." JoeMystical 19:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- There are some, not about Neo-Tech the philosophy, but Neo-Tech the company -- Integrated Management Associates. Are we confused enough yet? Bi 19:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and if the nominator can vote too, then I say delete. Bi 18:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)- Comment Once more, the whole reason for this AfD was that there aren't any peer-reviewed sources from either the pro-Neo-Tech side or the anti-Neo-Tech side, so if you'd like to keep this article, please at least suggest something more useful than "find some secondary sources". Jeez, I'm tired of this. Bi 19:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment That's not a good enough reason for deletion. JoeMystical 19:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment But that's a good enough reason to keep passing the buck, I guess. Bi 19:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- What does "passing the buck" mean?--SidiLemine 19:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Umm...? Bi 19:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Alright folks, I'm out of here. See you tomorrow on [WP:LAME]. Peace :) --SidiLemine 20:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Umm...? Bi 19:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- What does "passing the buck" mean?--SidiLemine 19:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment But that's a good enough reason to keep passing the buck, I guess. Bi 19:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment That's not a good enough reason for deletion. JoeMystical 19:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yet another darn comment... OK, I just had to get this out of my system. Friends, Wikipedians, countrymen, do you know why the Neo-Tech article is still not of encyclopedic quality? Why people keep voting to not to delete the article, but to clean up the article, but it's still a mess?
- I'll tell you why. Because everybody keeps waiting for someone who's not himself to clean up the article. You see this in the first VfD, you see this in the previous AfD, and you see this in the comments above. Yes, yes, the article can be great article, if only somebody who's not me goes the extra mile to clean up the article and pull out good-quality secondary sources from his magic hat! Yes sir, it'll be a "headache", but it's not my headache! And guess what, everyone ends up waiting for that someone who's not himself to do all the dirty work. Read the comments above, read the comments in the VfD, read the comments in the prior AfD, and judge for yourself whether I'm right.
- Stop this. Please. This has gone on long enough. Keep, don't keep, I don't really care now. But stop all this buck-passing.
- Thank you for your attention. Bi 21:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment The article doesn't need much "cleaning up." It's pretty well sourced and informative. I was trying to make it even better but then you go and delete the sourced information. Either help improve the article or get out of the way, please. Don't give us this "passing the buck" stuff. I wouldn't call deleting large amounts of information "cleaning up." . JoeMystical 23:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment You're ignoring consensus, which is that your article does need cleaning up. Bi 03:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment What consensus? And what do you mean my article? It's not my article. JoeMystical 03:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment You're ignoring consensus, which is that your article does need cleaning up. Bi 03:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The article doesn't need much "cleaning up." It's pretty well sourced and informative. I was trying to make it even better but then you go and delete the sourced information. Either help improve the article or get out of the way, please. Don't give us this "passing the buck" stuff. I wouldn't call deleting large amounts of information "cleaning up." . JoeMystical 23:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment What a mess! Bi, no one at Talk:NPOV told you to place this on AfD again. I specifically advised you on how to deal with individual statements that cannot be verified from reliable published sources. I advised you to follow the standard dispute resolution procedures, and to not edit war. I also suggested that you just walk away from this if you had a personal stake in it. JoeMystical, it is indeed true that an article that can be supported only by self-published sources does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and should not be in Wikipedia. I suggest that you read the policy on self-published sources. -- Donald Albury 22:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment So what are you getting at? You say the article shouldn't be in Wikipedia, yet you won't support its deletion. And then you "advised" me to do a whole lot of things I've already tried to do. Can anyone suggest something more constructive? *birds chirping* Bi 03:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability say: "Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves." JoeMystical 23:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC) Why it says "and other published sources of dubious reliability" I don't know. Obviously the sources are not of dubious reliability. How could a book be of dubious reliability when used as a source for itself? It's just straighforward quoting and paraphrasing. JoeMystical 23:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Self-published sources may be used as a source for what an author said about himself, i.e., Joe blow claims that he was abducted by little green monsters flying a space ship that looked like a 1949 Studebaker. They may not be used as sources for other things, i.e., we can't use a self-published source for Joe Blow claims that Spirow Agnew was abducted by little green monsters flying a space ship that looked like a BMW Isetta. -- Donald Albury 00:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Right, but besides self-published sources being used as a source for what an author says about himself they can also be used as a source for how the author describes his philosophy. They can't be used as a source for asserting whether the philosophy is good or not, of course, but a book can always be used a source for what's in that book. JoeMystical 02:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Self-published sources may be used as a source for what an author said about himself, i.e., Joe blow claims that he was abducted by little green monsters flying a space ship that looked like a 1949 Studebaker. They may not be used as sources for other things, i.e., we can't use a self-published source for Joe Blow claims that Spirow Agnew was abducted by little green monsters flying a space ship that looked like a BMW Isetta. -- Donald Albury 00:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I hate motherhood statements. That's all.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bi (talk • contribs).
- Merge There has been a proposition that we merge the article with Wallace_Ward, as has been one on the German Wikipedia. Anyone agreee with the idea? --SidiLemine 12:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Merge As mentioned on the talk page, I'll support a merge. Bi 13:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- To clarify, I'm fine with a merge with either Wallace Ward, Neo-Objectivism, or Objectivism (in order of decreasing preference). Bi 17:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Merge A merge will not make all problems go away, but should make things more manageable. -- Donald Albury 13:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per Donald Albury. Addhoc 17:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It doesn't make sense to merge. I understand why those who voted to merge would do so though, because they probably were not aware that of the following: Wallace is not the only developer of Neo-Tech. There are other writers who contribute their ideas to make what is called Neo-Tech. Only citing Wallace, you would not get a full picture of the philosophy. The philosophy stands alone because it's a combination of ideas from different people. Wallace's son, Mark Hamilton, has probably written about half of it. I oppose a merge. A merge with Frank R. Wallace makes no sense. And a merge with Objectivism would be original research because no secondary sources say it is a form of objectivism. The Neo-Tech article is a pretty good article. It's pretty well sourced and defintely written NPOV. There are PLENTY of sources. The books themselves are the sources. It is a good article, and the vote is totally uncalled for. "Bi" who put this up for deletion spends his time writing his own web page called "Neo-Tex" which is a feeble attempt to ridicule the philosophy. He doesn't like Neo-Tech and wants to get rid of the article and wants to remove as much words about Neo-Tech from Wikipedia as possible. Look at what he did to the Neo-Tech article. He tried to cut it down to almost nothing, deleting sourced information: He cut it down from this [3] to this [4] That is totally unjustified. Wikipedia is about being informative as possible, not least informative as possible. Bi has initiated this action for all the wrong reasons. Please consider changing your vote, because it's going to be moved back to its own article eventually anyway. Probably no one will change their vote, but at least this is here for the record so anyone can see exactly what this was all about. It is totally improper attempt to delete a fine article, with those voting not having enough background information to make an informed decision. JoeMystical 03:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I think it would be more acceptable to have a full-extent description of the guy's system of thought on his own article than on a separate one. Plus it would put the length of the neo tech citations in perspective with something else, instead of being evaluated per se. Should we wait for JoeMystical to approve, or is there a time limit to these things?--SidiLemine 14:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment No one has a veto over the decision. AfDs normally run for five days. An admin determines when to close the discussion and what the result is. - Donald Albury 14:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- By the way, SidiLemine, does your new "Merge" vote mean you are cancelling your earlier "Keep" vote? I've struck it out for you for now, but it'll be good to confirm. Bi 07:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yup, no worries. I wouldn't want to loose the subject altogether, but if we keep it that way we might as well merge it for added consistency. Oh and I support merging with Neo-Objectivism, as "Neo-Tech is the Business/Application mode of objectivism" Wallace, Frank R. Liberating Objectivism: The Liberation Manifest .--SidiLemine 10:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Merge. I'd lean toward delete on this one, but if there's a related article and a precedent then just merge it. Durova 21:54, 2 September 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.
