Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Voice to skull

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 discussion was Snow Delete. There is unanimous support for deletion except for the author of the page, who continually plays IDHT, and fails to advance any reasons based securely in Wikipedia policy. Moreover, he/she is adding nothing constructive to what he/she has already done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voice to skull. Letting this discussion run any longer would be a further waste of time for all concerned, especially since it is perfectly clear what the result will be. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Voice to skull

[edit]
Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Voice to skull (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is an AFC for an article already deleted by AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voice to skull). The author has already tried to use WP:RM to move it back to main space. The subject is covered adequately at electronic harassment, and most of the article would have to go anyway (e.g. "personal testimonies", which are as much use as the personal testimonies of "alien abductees"). Guy (Help!) 09:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This material is being used as a springboard for out of process requests by the author. It's a horrible WP:Coatrack and a WP:FRINGE travesty. It never should have been moved to mainspace in the first place.

Binksternet (talk) 10:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The way I look at it, there is no reason to delete anything on Wikipedia unless it's in violation of any policy or guideline on Wikipedia, or per legitimate request. Therefore unless you can prove it's necessary to delete any article or draft, the default decision should be Keep. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's in violation of policy. That's why it was deleted at AfD. That's why your attempts to use out of process methods to get it back to mainspace are a problem, and that's why I've nominated it. Guy (Help!) 21:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What policy? Please specify and discuss in detail. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The same policy that caused it to be deleted before. This has already been explained to you. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know. You are beating about the bush. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I think I do know. I have been an admin here for over eight years, I have a fair grasp of what is and is not compliant with policy. WP:NPOV is the problem with the article, WP:DP is the deletion policy you're trying to circumvent and WP:BP is where you're headed. Guy (Help!) 09:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't I receive a notification for this on my talk page? I could have missed this but for my watchlist. Besides, may I ask what authority you have for taking this action? As far as I can tell, MfD is neither policy nor guideline of Wikipedia. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any miscellaneous page can be nominated for deletion. Now please stop your querulous arguments and leave people who actually understand Wikipedia policy, to get on with keeping Wikipedia running. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What "people" are you talking about? - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to give you some detailed links here so that "justice can be seen to have been done". I will not comment further since it is demonstrably a waste of time to engage with you. Your total failure to understand WP:CONSENSUS after being linked to it being just one example of many (sadly, your comment that "reaching consensus means you need to persuade me" was deleted when the first V2K article was deleted).
(a) This article (and your other afc) as written will never make it into article mainspace at least because of WP:GNG, WP:FRINGE and WP:CFORK. These policies have definitely all been brought to your attention, although I accept they have not always been linked to. Well, there are the links.
(b) This Afc request is up for deletion because you have failed to take no for an answer and in trying to circumvent the afc process by using move requests are wasting people's time and causing WP:DISRUPTion. Indeed, you have clearly demonstrated points 1, 2, 4 and 5 of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS.
Since your afc entry has no value to wikipedia per (a) and is being used to disrupt wikipedia per (b), I believe it should be deleted as a "problematic page", this phrase appearing in the opening sentence of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. I have no single specific policy to link to for supporting my belief, but I have reached the view after reasonable consideration of the history of this afc, the policies listed and discussed above, and simple WP:COMMONSENSE. GDallimore (Talk) 10:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think your arguments are full of assertions and accusations without enough justification. Besides your assertions and accusations are not significant enough to warrant a Deletion. From my point of view, you are dragging in all the irrelevant trivia to complicate a relatively simple discussion: whether the draft should be deleted or not, for which I have already stated my opinion above. The fact that I have never received a block penalty says plenty about my editing conducts. Besides why should I take a No for an answer unless I am convinced it's a COMMUNITY consensus? - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not commenting, just linking to existing answer GDallimore (Talk) 21:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not substantially different from the article already deleted by overwhelming consensus at AfD, and stands no realistic chance of ever becoming an article - the sources needed simply aren't there, and if they were, the article would need a complete rewrite anyway. Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of fringe theories, and neither is it a free webhosting service. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't demonstrated the necessity for deletion. why not just leave well alone? Wikipedia shouldn't be a discriminator of fringe articles either. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has arrived at policies regarding the promotion of batshit-crazy fringe bollocks such as this drivel through considerable discussion, and by clear consensus - it isn't open to negotiation here. What you think we "should" or "shouldn't" do is thus of no relevance whatsoever to this discussion - and your relentless, clueless hectoring of everyone who opposes you attempts to turn this encyclopaedia into a forum for lunatics is getting extremely tiresome. Get a clue, or get lost. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "everyone"? You must know a lot more than I about hectoring. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Please specify what useful content you consider "already exists in articles like auditory hallucination" and I'll show you the draft covers a lot more than that. Besides, by definition, Voice to skull and auditory hallucination are mutually exclusive. The former can't be the latter and the latter can't be the former but the two can be easily confused. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to acquaint yourself with the first law of holes. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can understand that when an article doesn't meet the notability criteria it should be deleted. But when it comes to a draft why not just leave it alone unless it's absolutely necessary to have it deleted? A draft has the potential of becoming an article in the future. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a draft, it's a re-creation of deleted content in a part of Wikipedia intended for content to be moved to article space. You seem to be very determined to have an article on this fictional concept. Obsession with fictional constructs from conspiracy theories promulgated by the mentally ill, is not usually a healthy thing on Wikipedia (or indeed elsewhere). Guy (Help!) 17:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You and I have different definitions for drafts. Enough said. Everything else in your argument is just your assumption. Besides, what is wrong with it that I am indeed strongly inclined to have an article on a topic I deem important? - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We certainly differ on a number of things. For example, I think Wikipedia is not here to provide you with a platform to promote nonsense, while you clearly disagree. The technical term for your opinion on this is: wrong. Guy (Help!) 15:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am concerned, your argument is irrelevant to this discussion. Please refer to my comment above for details. FYI, by definition, Voice to skull and Microwave auditory effect may be related but definitely not the same topic. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Voice_to_skull&oldid=1073539906"