Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Council of Fourteen Minus Ten

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied Wikibofh 15:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Council of Fourteen Minus Ten

Nonsense

• Delete. No meaningful content. It is however amusing patent nonsense. ----sp00n17:talk Octoboer Q, 2005
• Delete. Gazpacho 07:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

  and protect against reposting. Gazpacho 02:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete patent nonsense --Anetode 09:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted as patent nonsense --Doc (?) 11:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• The author keeps re-posting, so I have reopened this afd to get a binding result. Gazpacho 02:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Please stop trying to delete my page, it is not vandalism and it contains factual truth. I did not make it up. I just wanted to improve wikipedia by adding an article about the council. I have a question for you all: Why is it bad to keep this entry on the site? It is not made up of lies, its not a hoax and its not vandalism. Please understand that I think you are being silly by trying to delete something where there is no problem to leave it up. If you want to talk with me on aim about this, my screen name is "persept0", Thank You for your understanding. Persept 02:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I've requested references for the material in this article but have received no response (Talk:Council of Fourteen Minus Ten). My opinion is that no significant portion of the article has a legitimate source and it is unsalvageable. Moreover, the author has added redirects to this site from Council of Four and Council of Fourteen. The former was a legitimate article that the author moved, renamed and made into a disambiguation page (see histories for the two pages). Walter Siegmund 02:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• This article basicly has no source because it is for a club type thing. It is something I am in. I am trying to put it on wikipedia becuse it is basicly undocument. I dont think that is a crime to come up with your own information! Other people dont always have to do all the reasearch! As I said before, IM me at persept0 on aim if you want to talk about this. Persept 03:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• By the way, it was not me who wrote about Tolkien and Marvel comics and the Council of fourteen. I have no clue who put that there since it only showed an ip address. It seems entirely made up to me. And i put a disambiguation page to disinguish from The Council of Four Minus Ten(which equals 4) the council of four from india, and the council of four lands. I thought this was nessisary. If i didnt think it was nessisary I wouldnt have gone to the trouble of changing all the links so there would be no redirects! Persept 03:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• I would like you to carefully read the requirements for patent nonsense:
  1. Total nonsense - i.e. text or random characters that have no assignable meaning at all. This includes things like ".lz nbl[909nvn[904wv[90am[0vm43[ eiov", where random keys of the keyboard have been pressed.
  2. Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make sense of it.

It is neither!! Stop making false accusations! And Someone answer my question: Why is it bad to keep this entry on the site? It is not false and it is not patent nonsence, its not a hoax, and its not vandalism. Why cant you people see that there is nothing against my site!!! Persept 03:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

To quote from Wikipedia:Alternative outlets:

Material is deleted from Wikipedia for a variety of reasons. Among them is that Wikipedia is a project whose goal is to build an encyclopedia, within a broad understanding of the word. Sometimes material is submitted that is perfectly factual, but does not fall within the scope of Wikipedia or any of its sister projects.

You might find a better location for your article at one of the links listed. However, it seems to me that your fellow Wikipedeans don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia. -Walter Siegmund 04:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable club. Eric119 04:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. This is indeed patent nonsense, to wit, "Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make sense of it." MCB 07:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• If editors had not once again abused the "patent nonsense" speedy deletion criterion, which this article does not come under (it being quite comprehensible), but had instead provided an applicable rationale for deleting this article, we perhaps wouldn't be having this discussion; because the original author would be looking at the policies that quite clearly explain why this article does not belong here, rather than looking at Wikipedia:patent nonsense, which is irrelevant here. The original author, Persept (talk · contribs), has handed us the rationale for deletion on a platter in the discussion above: I am trying to put it on wikipedia becuse it is basicly undocument. I dont think that is a crime to come up with your own information! Other people dont always have to do all the reasearch! By the original author's admission, this is unverifiable original research. Delete. Uncle G 07:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

comment: I was the editor responsible for adding the nonsense tag. In defense of this choice, I believe that (as MCB noted) this article is purposely absurd and an example of some weird sort of contrived incomprehensibility. Going strictly by the patent nonsense policy page, I didn't think that this article was merely poorly written or immature, but appeared to be completely meaningless at the time of nomination. I'm sorry if listing it for speedy deletion was too brash, but after re-examining the article and the author's comments concerning its creation, I still think it qualifies as nonsense. Anetode 18:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - I wouldn't have even known about this had Persept not vandalized the entry on Batman. This is nonsensical, non-notable, pretentious and any other adjective you want to put there. I'm a member of "Purple Monkey Dishwashers", but you don't see me trying to create an article on it. - DrachenFyre 15:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Due to the many many requests for deletion, I agree to have this page deleted by a moderator, since i am the creator of the page. In addion I think there should be another criteria for deletion that might apply to this article. Could someone please bring the topic up somewhere on the site? Thank you. Persept 18:04, 9 October 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.