Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Croft

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 delete. BD2412 T 01:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don Croft

not encyclopaedic

• Merge with Orgonite Deizio 01:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep sounds like a notable inventor. Much more important than bandcruft.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Was that "sounds as though he is a notable..." or "sounds as though he was a notable...". Am I being unreasonable in thinking that an encyclopaedia article should be clear about whether the subject is alive? Midgley 11:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. External links don't look reliable. Also, the article isn't really claiming that he invented anything, just that he has one design of a pre-existing invention (and whether an orgone generator constitutes an invention is debatable). --Allen 04:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless verified. Reliable sources needed. Stifle 23:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This article is poorly-written needs to be replaced by a new article. The current article is written in the past tense about a living inventor. None of Croft's inventions are listed. The invention which he calls a "Croft cloudbuster," commonly called an "orgonite cloudbuster" or a "chembuster," is not even mentioned. This is a unique invention that invariably differs from a Reich cloudbuster. Reliable sources are also missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.214.164 (talk • contribs) at various times

Comment. THat would be "delete without prejudice", IE if someone writes a new article then there is no reason it should not be good and be kept. THis one is too bad. Midgley 14:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Please note that merging with orgonite is not workable, as that article is itself a copyright infringement. Regards —Encephalon 21:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I couldn't support merging because there obviously is no article at this time and I am sure Don Croft is not the only thing to talk about under that subject.

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.