Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Wikipedia conspiracy"

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. - Mailer Diablo 02:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia conspiracy"[edit]

This is original research. It is meta too, so if anywhere, it belongs on Wikimedia, but I don't think it does.-- JoanneB 14:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think that it does either. It's original research, and all it does is state the obvious -- SoothingR^(pour) 14:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for original research. ERcheck 15:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and actual phenomenon. Pointing to evidence within wikipedia itself is not original research. Needs expansion and more specific examples. zen master T 15:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Pointing to evidence? I can't see any evidence that backs up the author his opinion in this article. -- SoothingR^(pour) 16:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Evidence can easily be provided in the form of wikipedia edit diffs. I agree the article needs rewriting, perhaps retitling and citations added but it most certainly shouldn't be deleted. Maybe it should be moved to the Wikipedia namespace. Regardless, in my interpretation the "essay" is an accurate statement of facts regarding wikipedia. zen master T 18:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Constructing a novel theory synthesized from raw data and then publishing it first in Wikipedia is exactly original research. Please familiarize yourself with our no original research and Wikipedia is not a soapbox official policies. Uncle G 01:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOR. This is a POV essay, not an encyclopedic article. encephalon 16:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ashibaka (tock) 17:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per encephalon and SoothingR. POV with nothing of merit and no evidence. There's other namespaces for this kind of thing, and the user openly admits writing the article to see how long it takes to get deleted. GhostGirl 17:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Could be userfied (many editors posted their opinions about wikipedia on their userspace), but the author is an anon. I wonder, why the quotes?... Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 21:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. I would have suggested a redirect to astroturfing if the name had not been in quotes. --Allen3 ^talk 22:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The sources in this case can be easily cited - simply use the relevant Wikipedia discussions as references. It is a phenomenon and one that deserves documenting in an encyclopedia. Bandraoi 23:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Documentation of such phenomena has to be published (and peer reviewed) outside of the encyclopaedia first. Please familiarize yourself with our no original research official policy. Uncle G 01:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article presents a novel theory that has not been published outside of Wikipedia and peer reviewed. This is original research, plain and simple. Delete. Uncle G 01:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - total BS.jucifer 01:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original Research abakharev 07:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR and POV essay. MCB 08:13, 9 November 2005 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.