Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Science today

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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Science today

POV essay. No factual content to be salvaged. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. POV rant. ManoaChild 04:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also suspect copyvio, but I guess it's from some page too new to be indexed by google. <drini ☎> 05:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No original research, though I wonder if it's just nonsense. Alex.tan 05:12, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, reeks of Time Cube. --Merovingian (t) (c) 11:47, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Are you all mad? copyright violation? too new to be indexed by google? no original research? "I guess..." - "..just nonsense.." It is clear that none of you have any idea what you are talking about; sadly --peter 06:01, August 3, 2005 (UTC) -- unsigned comment by Verbewarp (talk · contribs), author of the article. Verbewarp's nine edits are all to the article, the article's talk page, or this VfD.
- Verbewarp, from your comments here and at Talk:Science today, it seems you're misunderstanding at least some of the comments that recommend deletion. In particular, your essay is not being criticized for containing "no original research"; it is being criticized because it violates Wikipedia's principle of no original research. Your article is a very detailed explanation of what your opinion is and why you hold it; there is absolutely nothing wrong with you holding that opinion, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with you sharing that opinion. However, there is a problem with you using Wikipedia's resources to try and share and promote that opinion, because Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and sharing your opinion is not the purpose for which Wikipedia allowed you the use of its resources. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Antaeus Feldspar - Your comments are accepted - But, please explain "I also suspect copyvio" Please explain "No original research, though I wonder if it's just nonsense. " Please explain "reeks of Time Cube." etc., etc.

Your comments are not consistent with the deeds in evidence and you are misunderstanding the nature of your own judgemental issues. Let me explain to you that this submission under Verbewarp has been a test of the intgerity of the Wikipedia process - not an intention to publish, although cloaked in that guise. This article was taken from my blog to be found at http://verbewarp.blogspot.com/ as purely a test case. This test case has arisen due to a number of other rejections and judgements posted by your colleagues - upon other matters. The result is that your active judges are mostly and clearly unqualified and inexperienced individuals inflated to egoistic status embedded in a high level of arrogance and misunderstanding of their own abilities and the issues at stake.

Science can never be consensual - that idea is ludicrous - and this type of "peer" review appears to be derived from the "lowest common denominator" of social attainment; the beginning of life processes rather than from lives hoary with sagecity and experience. As a consequence of this test, my students and colleagues are to be issued with a warning notice as to the integrity of Wikipedia - or lack of it - that is not to say that Wikipedia will be black listed but more framed in an aspect of suspected oversight that needs strong referencing for support. Or, use only as a last resort but only if supporting evidence can be established from other more reliable sources.

Nothing personal about your intentions to create something useful, but before embarking on such adventures that have such huge and serious social implications, particularly for the unsuspecting youth, and in light of this site becoming a social point of reference and therefore a possible milestone for intellectual reference, I would strongly recommend that you all review the implications and possible damage that this effort, built in flawed and thoughtless conception, will bring upon our civilization. Wikipedia is a technology which is posing as a vault of intellectual knowledge and far better that there should be warning to your Users that the information contained within comes from a self appointed group of unqualified and inexperienced individuals acting out judgemental roles in some sort of immatured order. Far better that you train those that judge. far better that Wikipedia clearly declare itself a purely a store for societal storage or warehouse for trivia.

My article 'Science today' should have given you some clue as to where this was taking you as it sketches the basics of what and why general mainstream science today has no integrity and no future. You missed the point due to the fact that you didn't take time to consider the article, finding the construction thereo, uncomfortable and painful to your delicate and spoiled minds. This is no insult. Aristotle wrote of this over 2000 years ago, quite clearly and yet it persists today - rote, imitation and practise. You failed to adjudicate correct and according to your own rules. You took delite with insult. You alleged slander knowing that you couldn't be held responsible. You failed.

Your efforts will build more "dogma" in this world already overflowing with the emotional sewage of the wanabees and false pretenders and as a consequence will Wikipedia only assists in furthering the destruction or devolution of human achievement - dogma and practised thinking together with immatured opinion represents a danger to civilization more horific in its footprint than war; atomic war.

To teach would be more worthy of your time than to record.

I wish you all well but I would strongly suggest that you reconsider your future and priorities. This effort that si Wikipedia - just ain't worth wasting your lives on! Verbewarp --peter 06:22, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. silly rave Mccready 06:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT Sec. 1.3, in its entirety, but particularly 1.3.3 and 1.3.4, applies here. The Literate Engineer 06:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dull rant. Oooh, I wonder whether my vote will be accepted! Agentsoo 13:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a messy, convoluted rant which has no place here. --Several Times 13:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A 1373-word article that literally tells the reader nothing and is so dull it's actually painful to read. Xaa 17:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per astute observations above. Hamster Sandwich 17:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Merovingian, the first thing I thought of was Time Cube, and then a small portion of my brain exploded. Jason 18:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research--BirgitteSB 18:22, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete D. J. Bracey (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV/O.R. --Etacar11 01:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"And the meek shall inherit the Earth" - They did and they guard their dogma well. Thank you all for your contributions, Verbewarp --peter 22:30, August 4, 2005 (UTC) -- unsigned comment by Verbewarp (talk · contribs), author of the article. Ten of Verbewarp's twelve edits are to the article, the article's talk page, or this VfD.

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.