Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dysonberg Confusion Principle

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus, feel free to merge as suggested. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dysonberg Confusion Principle

Non notable I think (but I might just make one of those hats). Perhaps a candidate for BJAODN. See also Cosmic ray deflection society CambridgeBayWeather 05:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC) See below. CambridgeBayWeather 17:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nonsense --Trovatore 06:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, dribbling nonsense. Average Earthman 08:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Why isn't "hoax" a speedy delete category? --Wetman 09:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Mainly because it can be hard to define when a hoax is "obvious" enough for a csd. Also, in many cases an obvious hoax can be csd'd as nonsense... Usrnme h8er 09:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax. Merge, per Qirex, I'm happy to conceed that point. Usrnme h8er 09:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Cosmic ray deflection society (see other discussions on that page there, as well as at Valloween). Also to those voting delete on the grounds of hoax, I suggest you read the articles and their links before voting in future. --Qirex 11:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I forgot to cross post this from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmic ray deflection society yesterday: The group themselves may be spouting nonsense but that is not a reason to delete. I think these people, Heaven's Gate (cult) and Order of the Solar Temple, are also spouting nonsense (and a lot more dangerous) but I would not want to see them deleted. The reason here to delete is non-notability. CambridgeBayWeather 08:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I was unsure as to their notability which is why I didn't tag it as a speedy. If others feel that the group as such has some sort of notability then it should be kept. CambridgeBayWeather 15:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Cosmic ray deflection society. Having read through everything again, and the fact that also aswell took the time to work on the article (and ask for help). I have checked the links and think that I was hasty (not the first time) and wish to change my vote. CambridgeBayWeather 06:53, 11 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.