Talk:Reciprocal System of Theory/Delete

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

VFD

  • (summary of RST articles proposed for deletion) There are a numerous growing number of RST pseudoscience articles: Reciprocal System of Theory, Tutorial introduction to the RST, Wheel of Motion (Periodic table), Dewey B. Larson. They are all pseudoscience and should be deleted. Daniel Quinlan 04:19, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC); Please note your vote below in short form. If you have longer comments, please direct them to the Talk page for the article in question. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)

(UPDATE: Scalar motion, Gravitational motion were deleted. -戴&#30505sv 04:57, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC))

CORRECTION: you're confusing deleted with emptied. The author of the articles emptied a few of the articles as some sort of statement, but they are not deleted. A deleted page is denoted by a "edit this page" link (typically red instead of blue/purple). I added them back to VfD. The consensus seems to be: remove them all but the main article, Reciprocal System of Theory, but we're just waiting for someone to pull the switch. Daniel Quinlan 05:34, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC)
Keep all:
  1. Keep despite RST itself being patent nonsense, rationale at Talk:RST. Kat 18:50, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  2. Doug, the author of the articles, believes they should be kept in Wikipedia (see below)
Delete all:
  1. Daniel Quinlan wants all deleted: "Reciprocal System of Theory" has only 258 hits on Google, #1 is Wikipedia.
Keep main, delete rest:
  1. Stan recommended deletion of all but the main article.
  2. Robert Merkel recommended deletion of all but one article.
  3. User:Tim Starling -- keep the main article
  4. M123 all but one article should be deleted, the remaining article should be shorter and factual; wikipedia is not free webspace to lobby for a cause (as far as I know)
  5. Tb thinks there could be one RST page; the others should go. Especially things like Scalar motion and Gravitational motion which are likely to be very confusing to people who don't know it's all bunkum.
  6. Someone else - delete all articles but one, and be sure that one is clearly labeled with the NPOV equivalent of hooey. -- Someone else 07:08, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  7. Jwrosenzweig - keep the main article, delete the rest. The main article, once it's corrected for NPOV and has a good "critics of RST" section added, will be a nice way of demonstrating this particular belief for what it is--ambitious but scientifically unsound.
  8. Jake Nelson - Keep the main, delete the rest.
  9. Eloquence - Keep main, delete rest.
  10. mav - Keep the main RST article (in the shorter form Tim worked on), delete the rest
Other opinions and non-votes:
  1. Vicki Rosenzweig previously recommended deletion of Scalar motion, no opinion expressed on the others
  2. Marshman 18:43, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC) - Best way to cover these is to provide debunking information
  3. I have deleted the text of the Scalar Motion and Gravitational Motion articles, so they can be deleted without further ado. If you want to delete the whole shebang, please feel free to do so. I don't care anymore. Doug 16:48, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

General comments

Stevertigo, I reverted most of your changes to the RST articles. The pages other than the main article still need to be deleted. You seem to have confused "deleted" with "empty". The current RST page is also the work of much work, compromise, and huge amounts of discussion, adding material from the other pages that are to be deleted is a really bad idea. Unless you want to be sucked into the black hole, you might want to wait for Tim Starling and Doug to resolve any irregularities caused by the forthcoming deletions. Just a suggestion... :-) Daniel Quinlan 05:44, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC)

Oh ok. I was just going by the date more than anything -- it seemed like a beefy issue, that substantial editing had taken place, and that it had all been on VFd for more than a week, and that the consensus was overwhelmingly in favor of condensing the material, which it seemed was done. I know youre the one who put it all up for vfd in the first place -- so forgive me if I take your stand on the issue with a grain of salt. ;) VFD is for a specific purpose -- it does appear that the issue has passed the VFD test, judging by the compliance of the original author and the antipathy of the community toward outright removal. 戴&#30505sv 19:17, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC) (comment copied to Wikipedia:VFD:RST theory)