Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taogebra

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 16:15, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Taogebra

Original research nonsense, non notable. No google hits, created by someone I know, unfortunately. CryptoDerk 00:16, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Heh. Delete -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:22, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as joke or nonsense. No Google hits. Excerpt from article: ...polarity, a property shared by all things, continues to differentiate into four elements around a central "earth" element... etc. etc. etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:26, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nonsense. I would say BJAODN but... it's not funny. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:56, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

• I wrote the stub, not knowing about the prohibition of original research, sorry. I had thought it might be worthwhile once suitably expanded by interested parties, so I would have said give it a chance and keep it. But if it's against policy, it's against policy. 130.217.76.77 01:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Expanding it? So there'd be more crackpot rambling than there is now? Can't see how that would be a good thing. Delete psychotic gibberish. Ben-w 17:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Re-add it once it's become established on its own merit. Pburka 01:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete its patent nonsense.-Splash 01:50, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

This stub was adapted from some text that I wrote, by someone not familiar with the material, so it comes off as crackpot. My original text is based on understandings gained from a year and half of reading Thomas Cleary. This is a condensation of study in this school begun around 25 years ago. The wikipedia stub Taogebra may appear offensive on first reading, but I am hoping that it may be given a chance to be edited into credible form. Keep the disclaimer up. I agree with the policy of having a reputable encyclopedia, and I also see room for the valid translation of important ideas. Taogebra is based on concepts I remained sceptical of for a very long time. But to cast it out is to skip a stage in comprehension; to let an over zealous rationalization of an uninformed translation define how we understand. In my studies I learned to accept the valid part of a statement and not be bothered by the rest. 05:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 06:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Unsigned votes from various anon IP's:

Keep it. Interesting read.

Highly interesting. Definitely has some sort of twisted scientific value.

Keep it - very entertaining.

• Whoa. Idiosyncratic original research. Neologism, with zero Google hits for the word. Delete. Actually, on further reading of the article, Speedy Delete as patent nonsense if possible. -- The Anome 11:05, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. original research. Please gyus take a look sometimes into WP:CSD about what can be speedeleted. mikka (t) 21:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's not totally original research since Thomas Cleary writes in "The Secret of the Golden Flower",1991, about the potential for the techniques of the Complete Reality school of Tao [Ch'an, Zen]to be used for general problem solving. I tried to edit some of the bunk out of that entry; it said the edit needs to be merged, which I haven't figured out yet. -fractile *****

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.