Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triple Curve

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was No consensus to delete. The article should be merged to Political views of Lyndon LaRouche. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Triple Curve

Anyone voting here please also see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/LaRouche-Riemann Method, which was created by the same author for the same reason.

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Article has POV problems. Nominator abstains from voting. — Gwalla | Talk 00:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article was created by a new account The Power of Reason (talk · contribs) in violation of two arbitration committee rulings prohibiting supporters of Lyndon LaRouche from making edits or creating articles that promote LaRouche, or which are based on LaRouche publications, which the arbitration committee has determined constitutes original research. The Power of Reason has posted a photograph of LaRouche on his user page, and is making no secret of his support for him. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Lyndon LaRouche and User:The Power of Reason for an incident report.
The two arbcom rulings are at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:19, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic; based on discredited publications; represents a tiny-minority view; has no hope of becoming NPOV; constitutes original research; and violates LaRouche-related arbcom rulings.SlimVirgin (talk) 00:19, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, just give it a standard NPOV treatment. Everyking 00:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per SlimVirgin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:44, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but give NPOV treatment. This is hard core POV. Jacob1207 01:01, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a legitimate economic theory. LaRouche fantasy, all written as it's proven fact. -Willmcw 01:28, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Everyking. People have different views on whether or not the method is notable, so deleting the article on the basis of the theory not being notable is not in accordance with the NPOV policy. Pincus 01:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Forget the authors and the cause, and focus instead on the thing itself. Let's look at the forest, not the trees. This article concerns a single ideology fancied by that fantastic group. Is it notable? Well, it's not actually famous, so is it notable in the sense of being "first, pioneering, influential?" It appears to be first in the sense of being idiosyncratic. It's not pioneering, and it's not influential at all. Therefore, I'd say that this article should be deleted. At most, we could merge and redirect back to LaRouche, but that represents a victory by the cultists over Arbcom. Geogre 01:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Can I invent an economic theory - Quintuple Angular Distortion - and then say that it's encyclopedic because I made it up? --FCYTravis 02:13, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • If you can get a sizable political organization behind you, sure. That's notability. Everyking 02:21, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • You seem to have a rather strange definition of sizable. --FCYTravis 02:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • It's fairly sizable. I don't know specifics, but they run candidates all over the place. I mean it's by no means a major organization but it's not phonebooth size either. Everyking 02:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with SlimVirgin. --bainer (talk) 02:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with SlimVirgin and Willmcw. We already have too much space on Wikipedia for the dubious and idiosyncratic views of LaRouche and his followers.--Cberlet 02:53, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Pincus and Everyking. Also, I was illegally blocked for no reason as User:The Power of Reason earlier today. The Power of Human Reason 03:08, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • User's second edit. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:10, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes...who blocked his original account, and why? Everyking 03:25, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Why do you ask who blocked User:The Power of Reason when you can look it up on the blocklog? As for why, it was presumably because he's judged to be a reincarnation of User:Herschelkrustofsky. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:38, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
          • Anyone who seems pro-LaRouche must be Herschel? Everyking 03:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Ah, it was Snowspinner. I am shocked. Everyking 03:40, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • Drink! Extra sip for rhetorical question. --Calton | Talk 03:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
              • User:The Power of Reason seems too familiar with Wikipedia editing to be a brand new editor. User:Herschelkrustofsky was found to use sockpuppets. The deduction that the two are the same seems reasonable. -Willmcw 04:02, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
                • The logical conclusion to draw is that it is a possibility, which one would then follow up on by getting an IP check. I would hate to say that anybody who comes along and happens to act somewhat like a banned user, without breaking any rules, gets automatically banned without proof. That doesn't look very good. Everyking 04:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per SlimVirgin's reasoning. Change of vote to Merge and redirect to Political_views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche#Economics. I've taken a stab at making it NPOV, so maybe it's acceptable now. --Calton | Talk 03:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • From the article: Internationally known economist Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. . . . . Uh huh. Delete. (And don't waste server space on the image, either.) Thus inspired, I'll sign myself Internationally known philosopher Hoary 03:58, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
  • Merge with rewritten Larouche-Riemann Method stub. Not notable enough to deserve its own article by any stretch of the imagination. Haikupoet 04:16, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as a means by which the "average" reader can connect 'Triple Curve' with LaRouche, and thereby assess the one through the other. --Simon Cursitor 07:07, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • But Google has more hits for "triple curve" -larouche than for "triple curve" larouche. This suggests that the majority of uses of the phrase "triple curve" are LaRouche-unrelated. -- Hoary 07:30, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
  • Delete POV original research. JamesBurns 07:13, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, the article violates the arbcom ruling on Lyndon LaRouche. RickK 19:37, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV, original research. Jayjg (talk) 20:22, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not quite as useless as the one above, because this one has a picture!-Ashley Pomeroy 21:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm tempted to support a variation on the solution Willmcw alludes to above. That is, merge it into the Economics section of Political views of Lyndon LaRouche, but probably split that article into two, "Political views of..." and "Economic theories of..." That way, the first can be a place to dump, and rewrite in neutral prose, his general conspiracy theory nonsense, and the second can serve the same purpose for his self-aggrandizing fanciful economic models. Redirecting from the names of his individual theories and concepts depends on the circumstances. In this case, other uses for the name can and do exist, so I vote delete. --Michael Snow 22:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Give Michael and company a chance to merge, then Delete. DanKeshet 00:19, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: nonnotable crankery. Larouche's opinions don't inherit his notoriety. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable info from non-credible source. Tobycat 06:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Same reason as in LaRouche-Riemann Method. Kaibabsquirrel 06:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Explanation: this was "LaRouche may be a crank but I see no reason why there shouldn't be individual articles on his theories, groups, or notable followers." What Kaibabsquirrel doesn't see: The lack of significance of or interest in them, except among believers, for whose benefit (?) the web already provides scads of LaRouche-approved text. If his theories were discussed in respected, peer-reviewed journals, that would be one thing. But like Hubbard, he's not taken seriously. -- Hoary 07:15, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
      • There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia with a "lack of significance of or interest in them, except among believers". They still have articles. If the only available info on the web on these theories is LaRouche-approved text that's all the more reason why a neutral article on a non-LaRouche site discussing them might not be a bad thing, especially if there are LaRouche critics who have written criticisms or debunkings of these theories. Anyhow, isn't reliance on peer-reviewed journals to establish notability the sort of academic elitism that Wikipedia as a free encyclopedia is supposed to be making an end run around? Kaibabsquirrel 07:56, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. as per Michael Snow and Willmcw. Unfortunately LaRouche is a charismatic kook, and it is better to document his kookery than censor it. BlankVerse ∅ 07:29, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • You say "censor"; I'd say "ignore". What is it about LaRouche's beliefs that makes them so deserving of lengthy discussion? -- Hoary 14:18, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect as above. (La Rouchites have, IMO, a lot of nerve to refer to anything else as "so-called".) Also, if he is going to be referred to as a politician, as he is here, it should be followed by (perennial candidate), because as far as I know at least, he has never been even vaguely close to ever having been elected anything. Rlquall 11:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.