Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Apocalyse Cancelled

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Doug Bell ^talk 10:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Apocalyse Cancelled

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 is apparently a response to a news article by Christopher Monckton; it's being worked on by four editors. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a publisher of original thought or a free webhost, nor is it an Op-Ed column. It also fails WP:NPOV - since this is being worked on as a potential article, that policy also comes into play. Coredesat 20:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: It certainly does not fall into the realm of Wikipedia. We do not write articles about articles, for one thing, and by its very nature, it is POV. That said, I invite the people involved to go to Wikia, especially this page, where they will be able to work on this to their hearts' content in a wiki environment. Danny 20:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Absolutely not. Mackensen (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's one thing to work on an article in your userspace. But, in this case, a "op-ed response" is being made and that is one thing, as Danny pointed out, does not fall into the acceptable uses of Wikipedia. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and transwiki to Pov.wikia.com, where such things are acceptable. See, if you can't have it here, there is nearly always somewhere else for it. --SunStar Net^talk 00:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article is/can end up in valuable contributions to other pages (and we hope it will). There is no inherent contradiction in working on it as a response to a specific article. And i furthermore think there has been a lack of dialogue with us about this. As for the above problems - the only really big argument is that wikipedia is not a free webhost (which imho) is pretty broad and would cover all research - every other argument is dependant on subjective viewing. There is for instance no WP:NOT#OR on the page. --Kim D. Petersen 04:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Please see Danny's suggestions. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 09:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment We certainly will move it, if that is the consensus. Danny's suggestion is not all bad, we had just hoped that this could end up in contributions to several wikispace articles - for instance the one i've just put on Benny Peiser, which is a direct result of the work we've made here. The article is not inherently WP:POV and it certainly adheres to Wikipedia:Verifiability. I personally think that the focus on our work, originates from something completely different than what is mentioned above, as seen on the talk pages. What i seem to lack is a general guidance or help to us in promoting this into something that is mainspace compatible. --Kim D. Petersen 10:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong, strong delete - improper use of userpages for this big essay. Per the policies in WP:NOT cited by the nominator. Moreschi 11:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with Kim D. Petersen 84.142.63.46 20:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:NOT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seadog.M.S (talk • contribs) 21:32, 9 December 2006
• Keep on condition it is developed into a proper article. There is no inherent POV in disussing claims of general interest made by Monckton, so long as all claims made in the discussion are sufficiently supported by evidence to that effect. It is certainly not op-ed or anything like that. It sometimes comes across that way, but that is easily addressed. Dbuckner 12:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Where does WP policy say there are to be no articles about articles? Are we to delete On Denoting, then? I can find another 100 articles about articles of this sort in WP, I am sure. Dbuckner 12:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, there is a whole category (Category:Philosophy_essays) of articles on articles.Dbuckner 12:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have also looked at WP:NOT, and there is nothing there which the article in question potentially violates. There has to be some specific WP policy which this is an obvious violation of, for this page to go. Dbuckner 12:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of policies it violates. Let's start with the ban on original research. Mackensen (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no original research on that page. As I understand it, it is intended as a review of the existing literature. I agree: if you can find OR there, or POV, please remove it. I'm speaking as a global warming sceptic, by the way. I was interested in Monckton's piece, and was interested to see the background behind it that these guys have put in. Dbuckner 16:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Having some references does not prevent original work from being original work - the original part is assembling your references in such a way as to prove a point, rather than simply stating the facts in an encyclopaedic manner. Wikipedia is not your soapbox, please take it to Wikia or something similar. Proto::► 13:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The references are mostly Moncktons own - ie. a review of the sources. It is not cherry-picking / original research. Surprisingly enough they (in many cases but not all) do not say what Sir Monckton claims. --Kim D. Petersen 15:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above, especially Danny. WP:NOT definitely applies, as the POV issues are inescapable. -- Kicking222 07:38, 12 December 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.