Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talmud Jmmanuel Logia

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. Mailer Diablo 06:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talmud_Jmmanuel_Logia

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

This page is redundant with Talmud_Jmmanuel and is intended to re-introduce controversial material under discussion at Billy_Meier. Phiwum 05:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Why you do not you use your intelligence and read BOTH books? Read first the TJ and then read the FAKE/FALSIFICATED retranslation I am Sananda? You are the one putting controversial and lies here. This world is in the disgraceful situation it is now because of people like you who is trying to maintain the status quo of this evul planet mate. Read the TJ first and then read this trash here: http://www.luisprada.com/Protected/and_they_called_his_name_immanuel.htm

Use intelligence guy!!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Saalam ibn Shalom (talk • contribs)

• Delete -- the page as is (14:19BST) contains unsustainable "attack" material and exhbits sustained POV. Other paerts of it read either as copyvio or as advertising copy. What there is no this page which is not on Billy_Meier page could probably be translocated there, with a redirect left there. -- Simon Cursitor 13:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, wtfcruft. I'm still extremely hazy on what this article is trying to say, the "See Also"s are completely out of wack. I guess an article which says something like "there's this dude in Suisse who claims to know all this junk about aliens, and here are two links to his pages" would be more appropriate, or maybe nothing at all.--Deville (Talk) 13:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — Sheesh, AfD is becoming a strange attractor. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. RJH 16:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment — Actually, I quite liked it when he mistakenly put this long rant in the "XvsXP" deletion article by mistake. Some folks are just passionate about their OS wars, huh? Phiwum 17:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as patent crankery. Brian G. Crawford 16:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Well, I guess the "whole world will learn how dumb [I am]", because this should clearly be deleted per nom, Deville, RJ, and Brian. Joe 23:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign)

• Comment — Well, the world would know if you signed your vote, anyway! Phiwum 18:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• It might not be Joe's fault; perhaps he was educated stupid. Oh, and Delete. -Colin Kimbrell 22:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a pulpit; AfD is not dumping ground. Bucketsofg 18:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, looks like a crank, acts like a crank, probably is a crank. Average Earthman 18:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Barely intelligible, probably OR, dubious claims to notability. Doesn't belong here. --Hyperbole 21:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, crank that violates soapbox rules. JohnnyBGood 21:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete another dumb vote. Capitalistroadster 22:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Obviously a vandal target, sloppy, and it doesnt even make sense.I guess Im dumb. --Pal5017 22:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - need i say more?Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Went to the website - couldn't ask for more patently fake photography if I put out an all-call. Denni ☯ 03:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - saying "DO NOT DELETE" 20 times isn't going to help. --Khoikhoi 05:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as the single most ridiculous sockpuppet show of the 21st century or so. Also a boring article which, after a cleanup, probably reveals a nn-bio. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment — Actually there already is a bio for Billy Meier. The Talmud Jmmanuel Logia was created as I tried to re-write parts of the Meier page to bring it up to standards. (The re-write is not done, but I think the page is improved. Feel free to pitch in at Billy Meier!) Meier seems notable to me and I certainly don't advocate deleting that page, even though some of his advocates have missed the point of Wikipedia. Phiwum 05:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC) (Forgot to sign)

Please sign your contributions with ~~~~. Georgewilliamherbert 20:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, didn't see that first. Okay, assuming the other article is okay and notable and all, then we're talking of a duplicate article / pov fork (or "insane fork", actually), and an incomprehensible one at that. I still say delete and failing that, a redirect with ye-gods-please-don't-merge. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wow...just wow... Nigelthefish 15:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge back to Billy Meier - if Meier is notable and his UFO work is notable, then keep it there. This stuff.. sorry, the article right now looks like schizophrenic ranting. Georgewilliamherbert 20:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Punkmorten 19:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Moe ε 02:13, 1 April 2006 (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.