Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric Enceladus

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. Dakota 04:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Electric Enceladus

Electric Enceladus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Recreation (of the same form of junk) of deleted article (created 8 days after the old one was deleted) junk pseudo-science without any valid referencing (outside its own self-publicist websites), additionally appallingly written as a encyclopaedic article (written in style of academic paper) and clearly being used to give a degree of officialism to crackpot junk. All the points for deletion made in original articles AfD (namely, COI, OR, NN, V, and RS) are valid for this one. Additional clean-up deletions needed on all the uploaded images (presumably copyvio's) as well SFC9394 19:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Actually, this is a little worse than the earlier article--it has been elaborated further, but still with no sources. The one real source they list is, as before, simply a picture of the moon. The tag I tried on it was " totally disputed" --the article is written entirely in-universe. As any pseudoscience, it would get an article if it were notable to the public, but apparently this is sufficiently absurd that no mainstream sources have paid any attention to it at all. DGG 21:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. This shouldn't even be debated. --ScienceApologist 22:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• speedy delete as CSD G4, per all above Pete.Hurd 22:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - this shouldn't have been put up for AfD. --Philosophus ^T 23:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• However, be careful with the images. Trying to delete them as copyvios will most likely backfire, with the uploaders suddenly revealing themselves as the authors, or as people with control over the copyrights. --Philosophus ^T 00:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• With the article not quite being a recreation along with this being the subject of significant comment and two ArbCom cases I felt it was important for a public AfD to be made, for clear reasons to be displayed and consensus clearly broadcast. If it had just being SD'ed by me and the article disappeared into thin air an hour later it would have fuelled the conspirators views that this is being "suppressed" or "covered up" in some way. As for the pictures, either way they can be deleted as unencyclopaedic and/or as orphans. The picture of the sunspot and the eclipse are very likely copyvio's - the rest are probably from their crackpot book. SFC9394 10:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete original research, no importance. --JamesHoadley 03:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 02:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, original research, non-notable fringe theory. IMHO the article carefully avoid to violate the letters of CSD G4, so let us live some more days with the article. --Pjacobi 13:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree, let's do this in a way that is procedurally impeccable, in hope that we won't have to do it over again.DGG 22:22, 7 May 2007 (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.