Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Province of the Carolanas

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. humblefool ®^{Deletion Reform} 21:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Province of the Carolanas

This page is some kind of weird hoax/original research. Please see talk page for details. This article should be deleted since most of it is pure bunk. A brief mention of the one true thing in it (the Heath patent) should be put on Province of Carolina. This page is connected to other pages that I strongly suspect of vanity/non-notable/original research, including: Four Freedoms Federation and John Lilburne Research Institute (all of these pages were created by User:MPLX). --JW1805 18:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I (MPLX) left Wikipedia some months ago after running into the onslaught of the ill-informed Christian right wing. Although I am not monitoring Wikipedia and do not have any intention of rejoining Wikipedia due to the small cabal of noisy and ill-informed (as opposed to uninformed) people who love deleting stuff, I have been pressed to add this comment due to the sudden interest in deleting a few of the articles that I contributed to. (I have written about many topics.)

It would appear that someone has it their head to sever any ties between John Lilburne and the foundation of American law. This led to a constant barrage of negative comments on the Hugo Black article. Now I see that the idea is to claim that "Carolana" is a misspelling of "Carolina" and to go further and claim that the article about Carolana is a hoax. To this end both Dr. Kenneth Brown of the University of Houston and Dr. Eric Gilder of the University of Sibiu have also been smeared as being not noteworthy and at worst as the creators of vanity and even hoax articles. Such rants by the few lunatics who have gained a noisy control over Wikipedia are one reason why I left Wikipedia and why Wikipedia is in danger of becoming the refuge of a right-wing idiots.

It would seem that a handful of people are trolling with the intent to delete anything that they may disagree with. I noticed the same approach was used on the subject of copyright law within articles dealing with the subject of recorded music and broadcasting which I also contributed to. Now I see that all broadcasts by 4FWS have been tagged as not worthy because they were on "pirate" radio stations - even though several were on licensed stations. However, everything is being smeared and tarnished to make it appear that everything and anything that I contributed to was either a hoax, a work of vanity or unnoteworthy. I also created the history of the development of the jet fighter, but I have not as yet (and probably won't bother) checked to see if those entries are also being targeted.

It is unfortunate to say the least because I thought that Wikipedia had merit, but when I discovered that a mere handful of dedicated zealots could take it over and put their own stamp of ideological approval on it - I left.

Before making more claims that Carolana never existed I would suggest that you perform a little serious research. Unfortunately the zealots have decided that they are a jack of all subjects (and master of none), and because they have never heard something before it means that the subject is either a hoax or a vanity creation by someone else. How pathetic for Wikipedia!

66.90.213.45 00:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC) (the former MPLX)[reply]

Delete, 20 google hits including mirrors of this page, apparent hoax, and this user is certainly suspect as noted above. Tempshill 23:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, every single Google hit is from Wikipedia (or a Wikipedia mirror site).--JW1805 00:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good grief, and how the hell did John Lilburne Research Institute survive? --Calton | Talk 00:23, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: apparent hoax. About John Lilburne Research Institute, on counting the votes I see 6 delete to 3 keep, which is enough to delete. I might go back and do that. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want another vote on John Lilburne Research Institute, I vote strong delete. It's obviously vanity/original research, as is Four Freedoms Federation (if you read the rambling article, you discover they made some public-access tv appearances, and broadcast some programs on illegal and short-wave radio. I'd bet good money that this is 4 people operating out of their garage, and that one of them is MPLX).--JW1805 07:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. R adiant _>|< 16:20, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete hoax. Someone could renominate John Lilburne Research Institute for deletion, and include references to this VfD and that for Four Freedoms Federation. - ulayiti (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; not a hoax, but not well-documented enough. Incidentally, I contacted the author of one of the external links, and he assures me his information was from a local historian, not this article. MPLX is paranoid, possibly a crank, but I see no reason to doubt they acted in good faith. Lusanaherandraton 11:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting about the other website. I would be interested to know exactly what they said, and who this "local historian" is. Honestly, on the face of it, it seems a huge interpolation to link some graves found in Houston to Heath, who is regarded as an historical footnote who had a claim to Carolina but never tried to colonize it. The notion that he decided to plant a colony in Texas is quite a stretch, and doesn't seem to have been written about by "legitimate" historians. That's why I would consider this "original research". --JW1805 16:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admins: if this page is deleted, make sure to also delete the cartoon images:
- File:LOST-1.pngFile:LOST-2.pngFile:LOST-2a.pngFile:LOST-3.pngFile:LOST-4.png

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.