Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voidal Symmetry

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 speedy deleted as G1 (patent nonsense) by Orangemike (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 05:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Voidal Symmetry

Voidal Symmetry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Personal essay; no ghits except a user page and wikirage. Trovatore (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable original research. Note: author is asserting copyright. Does that make it a speedy candidate? Dawn bard (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I've nominated it for speedy. Note that the author says 'under construction', as if this were his personal web page. Wikipedia is not a web host. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    • comment I don't know any speedy-deletion criterion that would apply to the copyright notice specifically, and I don't see why there ought to be one. We each hold copyright on our contributions to WP; we just license that copyright under the GFDL. It's true that a copyright notice is one of the red flags that makes the word "crackpot" fly unassisted into my brain, but that's just a correlation. --Trovatore (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Appears to be WP:OR or copyvio, or both because of this SunCreator (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Hi, I am the author of this page Template:Voidal Symmetry. Thanks for pointing out that I have breached guidlines. You're right in saying it's an original work. However, I believe this is an important discovery and if any one can assist me in properly formulating this I would be most grateful. It is based on the 'Nothing is Something' argument so perhaps references can be included to bring it into line with Wiki policy. As I say - I would welcome any help. A C Thursby-Pelham 02:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment If you have a look here: http://members.iinet.net.au/~andrewtp21/voidal_symmetryBACKUP.html and scroll down a bit you can see how this set of numbers correalates with the numbers in the Book of Revelation exactly. A C Thursby-Pelham 02:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewtp21 (talk • contribs)
    • Response A.C., I think you've acted in good faith, but you don't seem to understand the nature of Wikipedia. We're a tertiary source; we don't publish original work. It first has to be published in reliable sources. --Trovatore (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Get it published first. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Celarnor Talk to me 02:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Question What publication/s would Wiki consider valid as publication mediums? A C Thursby-Pelham 02:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewtp21 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment, valid for Wikipedia is WP:RS 'Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.' and WP:N 'significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject'. SunCreator (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2008 (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.