Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theory of Electronic Conspiracy
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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Theory of Electronic Conspiracy
Not encyclopedic. Morza 20:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as pure original research. The article claims that "a secret group has attempted to reach, for centuries, worldwide dominion by means of controlling the computerised information of the planet." Given the computer was invented about 70 years ago, I think we can call this one a hoax even by the abysmally low standards usually found in conspiracy theories. Gwernol 20:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Obviously. --Folantin 21:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, nonsense. Google throwing up absolutely nothing. J Milburn 22:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. The author tries to validate with this article an article on es-wikipedia with the argument that "it exists on english wikipedia". Primary source and pure fabulation. Hispa 22:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 00:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete WP:HOAX or at the very least WP:NOT#OTHOUGHT. Suriel1981 00:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as complete bollocks and about as notable/relevant as my left sock. Moreschi Request a recording? 09:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. El filóloco (The Mad Philologist) - Talk to me (in Spanish, please) 15:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- TRANSLATION: Pardon me for my limited English. Where you say, quote, "The author tries to validate with this article an article on es-wikipedia with the argument that 'it exists on english wikipedia'". Primary source and pure fabulation." is false: I do not try to validate this article by claiming that it is OK because it has been translated into English, because it is evident that the translation occurred much later (in addition, I did not do the translation, as my English is poor). I have not invented the theory, as it already exists in the books detailed within the bibliography ("references") section at the bottom (the same cannot be said of the other enumerated conspiracy theories on this Wikipedia). Translation by Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 17:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, unanimity scares me!--tequendamia 23:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I requested that the article's originating editor attempt to provide online references which may make verification easier. If the books are indeed valid sources, then despite the logical flaws of the theory: WP:NOT#OR is irrelevant, WP:BOLLOCKS is not policy, and its fit into WP:HOAX can be disputed as the line between hoax and real conspiracy theory is iffy at best, especially considering some other conspiracy articles on Wikipedia. I concur, however, that Google does not appear to yield anything in either English or Spanish. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 00:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, And why these other conspiracies are not hoaxes and are not articles for deletion?: [1] (...Perhaps because there is something of truth in it? ) El filóloco (The Mad Philologist) - Talk to me (in Spanish, please) 07:26, 4 April 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.
