Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheoPhasic Science
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. All "Don't Delete" votes are by users whose only contributions are to the article itself and this AfD debate. — JIP | Talk 10:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this to be a hoax page. If not a hoax, it is a "brand-new" philosophy, a sort of neologism. Joyous (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable, zero google hits even for 'theophasic'. --Stjarna 16:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. TheMadBaron 04:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't Delete I don't believe that this page is doing any harm, even if it gets "zero google hits." If everyone faced new things like you all are, the human race would never gain knowledge.
Delete no one using and wikipedia shoulden't be used for someones religion
- Don't Delete I Agree, if we delete this, we may be deleting and eistienian idea, in which human thoughts may revolve around later in the future
- Don't Delete There is nothing wrong with neologisms - movements begin with such ideas. A lack of an open mind is what stunts progress.
- Delete this isn't the place for new research or unverified information - if einstein published a new idea here, it would also be deleted Tedernst 22:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't Delete The Wikipedia deletion rules state that if a wiki has "original research," then that wiki may be put up for deletion. However, this rule was made for papers that are extremely outlandish (eg. Why cat's hate dogs in 1898 by looking at animal weight). If examining the content on this page, it is basically confirmed by human logic, the point of this wiki. The only difference between this wiki and regular thought is that this wiki calls those thoughts "TheoPhasic Science." So are those people who are pro-delete saying that our thoughts are not evidence? *And the materials that are known to humans count as thoughts because that is what they started as.
- I suggest that this wiki and some of the concepts in this article should be renamed/moved, NOT DELETED. Some of the wiki's concepts are not foreign. If one does a search for some of the ideas without the names, one turns up hits. The only difference is that this wiki is particular and puts all of the thoughts under a new catagory, dubbed "TheoPhasic Science" because it follows a type of logic, such as science, but concerns a lot of theology based questions. The name of phasic is in there to show a bridge between the two. If Einstein had the capabilities to post on Wikipedia, he probably would have, and especially more modern scientists whose ideas are so strange, or named, that they are rejected, yet fastforward several years and they are widely accepted. The only reason why Einstein wasn't automatically rejected was because he had substantial research to back it up. This wiki just needs some links that agree with the information posted. *A large percentage of people didn't believe the universe was expanding till the background radiation was discovered, but that didn't mean that it wasn't true before the discovery.
- Don't Delete If Einstein published a new idea here, it would also be deleted? Doesn't that prove the utter ridiculousness of this even being considered for deletion? Without Einstein's thoughts and proofs, technologically, as a race, humans would be at least a few centuries behind.
- Einstein would publish in a scientific journal and then that journal would be cited when someone wrote an article here. What part of "No original research" don't you understand? Tedernst 20:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Vandalism of this page and those who have commented here confirms probable hoax/vandalism. --Dvyost 21:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You do realize that a) the vandalism of the actual wiki has gone down, and b) the vandalism of the page has nothing to contribute to the "hoax" assumption of the wiki.
- 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.