Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:28, 16 July 2006

Revision as of 23:50, 16 July 2006

Line 218:

*'''Comment to Keglined''' Keglined, please refrain from referring to socks. I really do not see any evidence of that here and it is distracting from the main points. Obviously people are interested in the CTMU. It is certainly notable. The article does not include original research, but rather reports on research that is already out there and possesses a reasonable NPOV in its current state. Tim Smith has posted the Wayback links to both POPSCI articles so please focus on whether or not the article meets Wikipedia criteria. It clearly does. Whether or not you like the CTMU or its supporters is not at issue. Nor is your bizarre edit history. I just hope the admins can sort through this mess. [[User:DrL|DrL]] 12:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''Holy Megalomania, Batman... 52 Times!''' It’s a [[Vanity_article|Vanity Article]]<br>''Wikipedia: “Vanity information... can come in the form of an entire article... Such information usually detracts from the direct illumination of the central topic of any article.”''<br>The CTMU article seems to focus more on Langan than the [[CTMU]] itself. '''In fact, the word “Langan” appears ''52 times'' throughout the article;''' "CTMU" only 34. A quick check of other Wikipedia articles shows this figure is highly unusual: “Twain” appears in [[Huckleberry Finn]] 14 times; “Gates” in [[Microsoft]] 27 times; “Hawking” in [[Hawking Radiation]] 21 times; “Einstein” 19 times in [[Special Relativity]]; and the word “Darwin” appears in [[Evolution]] 12 times. '''''Pathetically, in the CTMU article, each of the words “for,” “as,” and “in” appear fewer times than the word “Langan”!'''''<br>''Wikipedia: “The most significant problem with vanity articles is that they often discuss subjects that are not well-enough known for there to be multiple editors.”''<br>Yes, there appears to be a number of [[sockpuppets]] at work here; until a couple days ago this article had but a dozen editors, four of which have in one form or another rejected the CTMU. Of the remaining eight, five ([[Asmodeus]], [[CaveBat]], [[DrL]], [[70.20.16.129]], and [[12.207.19.38]]) have contributed nothing to Wikipedia aside from edits to this article, the article on Langan himself, or references to Langan in other articles (also, it is a matter of record that Langan has published pseudonymously in the past [http://www.megasociety.org/noesis/41/index.html]). Oh yeah - '''''delete''''' {{unsigned|207.58.130.228}}

:Oh yeah - '''''delete''''' {{unsigned|207.58.130.228}}

* '''FIFTY TWO TIMES??? ROFLMAO!!!''' "the word "Langan" appears 52 times... "Twain in [[Huckleberry Finn]] 14 times; "Gates" in [[Microsoft]] 27 times; "Hawking" in [[Hawking Radiation]] 21 times; "Einstein" 19 times in [[Special Relativity]]; "Darwin" in [[Evolution]] 12 times..." '''''That's all I needed to see!''''' It's a blatant advert. Pure garbage.{{unsigned|207.58.130.228}}

::*'''Note''' above user, who does not sign his posts, is having a conversation with himself. This is the only page on Wikipedia that he has edited. [[User:DrL|DrL]] 23:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

::**'''As explained''', the POPSCI issue contained both an article AND an interview. Neither are forgeries. Please be responsible and don't perpetuate mistakes. If you check the history, you will see that the only reason "Langan" is mentioned so many times is that critics insisted that many statements be qualified (e.g., "Langan states ...", "Langan claims ...", etc.). Also, there are no sock puppets, so please refrain from such accusations. [[User:DrL|DrL]] 19:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete'''. Patent nonsense and clap-trap. [[User:Linas|linas]] 20:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Line 244:

*'''KEEP''' - but with a proviso that '''more work is needed discussing CRITISM of the theory'''. For example see [[George_Berkeley]] [[Idealism]] etc. The debate is very long and thoroughly confusing. If it has attracted this amount of debate, I can't see how it fails the [[WP:notability]] test. However without padding the Critism section out, then I can only see the article being merged with the other Langen topics [[Mega Society]]. :-) Esse est percipi [[User:Mike33|Mike33]] 17:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''DELETE THIS NONSENSE.''' The CTMU article cites numerous publications, but only one reference is to a science-oriented periodical (and it's Popular Science? Sad). In fact, this link points to an archived reproduction on the CTMU author's own website. A search for the original article on Popular Science’s website '''yields no results'''. The [[20/20]] reference revisits an interview wherein the CTMU itself is hardly even mentioned! Instead, the focus seems to this weight-lifting, ''"big brain"'' dude. It's like the tallest man in the world claiming he's the greatest basketball player in history because he was pictured in a non-sports magazine holding a ball next to a hoop. Aside from some references to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 self-published] copies of the CTMU itself, the only other "independent" references are to magazines and TV shows that '''''have nothing to do with science.''''' [[Newsday]], [[The Times]]?, [[Muscle & Fitness Magazine]]??? If you're not a cosmologist, but you ''play one on TV,'' does your TOE really matter? {{unsigned|153.26.176.34}}

*::*Links to both POPSCI articles in archive.org have been provided by Tim Smith on this page. Please sign your comments. [[User:DrL|DrL]] 20:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

::*'''Conflict of Interest''' A little research reveals that there is likely a conflict of interest in the above vote. Note in history of CTMU article, user 153.26.176.34 links to crank site www.conspansion.com, which derogates Langan and falsely accuses him of stealing the conspansion idea (with no supporting evidence, of course!). [[User:DrL|DrL]] 23:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)