Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Escalator Productivity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further 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 Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 06:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Escalator Productivity
This isn't complete gibberish, so I guess it can't be speedily deleted. It ought to go away, though, leaving no trace. Pilatus 15:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - this is an encyclopedia; all bona fide information is appropriate, and the proper threshold for "notability" is "does it exist?". This topic meets both these criteria; therefore, it belongs here. Kurt Weber 15:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. "Does it exist?" I'd say no. Unverifiable, probable hoax/joke article. android79 15:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- It certainly does exist...all that has to be true for a theory to exist is for it to be stated somewhere--and it is at Escalator Productivity. Kurt Weber 16:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- If this "scientific theory" exists only on Wikipedia, then it is original research and should be deleted. android79 18:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- That it is "original research" is not a valid reason for deletion. The policy may claim otherwise, but the policy is wrong. Kurt Weber 20:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Deletion policy explicitly lists original research as a reason for deletion. No original research is one of Wikipedia's core policies. So are What Wikipedia is not and Verifiability, which this article also fail miserably. I am dumbfounded at the continued defense of what is essentially a joke. If the "policy is wrong," feel free to attempt to change it through consensus. android79 21:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the wrong policy came about through consensus; "consensus" is as flawed as the policies it creates. Kurt Weber 21:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Deletion policy explicitly lists original research as a reason for deletion. No original research is one of Wikipedia's core policies. So are What Wikipedia is not and Verifiability, which this article also fail miserably. I am dumbfounded at the continued defense of what is essentially a joke. If the "policy is wrong," feel free to attempt to change it through consensus. android79 21:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- That it is "original research" is not a valid reason for deletion. The policy may claim otherwise, but the policy is wrong. Kurt Weber 20:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- If this "scientific theory" exists only on Wikipedia, then it is original research and should be deleted. android79 18:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- It certainly does exist...all that has to be true for a theory to exist is for it to be stated somewhere--and it is at Escalator Productivity. Kurt Weber 16:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - probable hoax; no Google hits JoJan 15:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - Nothing on google/ content doesn't make sense; This is probably a made up vanity page by the contributer (who also tried to add to Pace University and Trey Thomspon). --Howrealisreal 16:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, per WP:NOT wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Including any theory ever invented by anyone is indiscriminate. Kappa 16:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Well put, Kappa. / Peter Isotalo 16:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. TheMadBaron 17:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, per Kappa. --Andy Janata 17:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, per Kappa. Thue | talk 18:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per Kappa. Ditto on Karmosin's comment, btw, I don't think anyone could have said it better than that. When the creator of a subject in question whines and moans about the process on here, it usually means that they have nothing to show that it's notable. Karmafist 23:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - effectively original research if only stated online on wikipedia; Google search gave no effective results [1].--AYArktos 00:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, and sentence the writer to walking up the escalators in the Washington Metro. Those are some serious escalators... Meelar (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- ... especially when the power is out. Barno 07:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - original research.Vizjim 11:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, nonnotable even if not original research. I tend toward inclusionism but there must be a line somewhere. If this article were to survive, next would be an article on Extreme Inclusionism -- "a theory developed by James M. Lane, which states that some people want to put (or leave) inappropriate articles in Wikipedia." JamesMLane 00:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per Kappa. (I commented just so I could write that:))—encephalonεγκέφαλον 04:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Bogus. Jonathunder 05:21, 24 September 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.
