Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ex-Conism

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 was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced nonsense, unfortunately probably not speediable. Sandstein 20:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. On his talk page, the creator says, "It does not exist anywhere." Now, in a way he's right, since it doesn't; in a way, he's wrong, since it's here on WP. Let's make him right. (Not notable, made up, nonsense, etc.) Drmies (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Xe has said much the same on the article's talk page. Xyr own talk page pretty much states outright that xe is here to abuse Wikipedia as a soapboax and as a vehicle for publishing original research. This is a canonical example of content that is prohibited on Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is made-up, original research, non-notable etc. LinguistAtLarge 20:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. HeureusementIci (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not exist, neither should the article. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and recommend that the article's creator read the basic Wikipedia guidelines. This is not a soapbox in which to push new ideas about social justice which hasn't even gained a single shred of notability from the real world. MuZemike (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, gently. Among other things, this seems to be an attempt to publicize a user page, and as such inappropriately mixes encyclopedia and project content. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - courtesy moved here to tidy the listing and presumed !vote added by me Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 23:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-Conism does exist. Ex-Conism is as much alive as you and me. People with a stigma arising from criminal involvement are discriminated against and this is not an issue well addressed in social welfare literature. All of you sound like the Pharisees in Jesus' time or the critics that said the Wright brothers would never fly and again those who put Galileo to death. You are armchair critics with nothing to add to the world but obstacles.

The concept and principles of ex-conism are present in feminism and racism and if you would but open your heart and minds, you'd see what I am trying to accomplish. Feminism and racism had its founder too. Where better to advance knowledge than in an encyclopedia? Why limit information that is obviously needed and valuable? Why do people always erect barriers to things they do not understand?

All movements and philosophies have their founders, from psychology, existentialism, anthropology and you get the point. Today you have a man who lives among you who has founded a modern social justice discourse and you rebel and react like petty tyrants. You strike me as elitists, the very people this dialog aims to eliminate and eradicate and challenge. You think you can control media and information but you can not. Freedom of speech and of the press is the cornerstone of the US constitution. We ought to encourage bold new thinkers, and not try to kill them.

When you are finished limiting your selves to childish rules and guidelines and rise above your immature and unreasonable biases, perhaps then you will have achieved a modicum of humility to enable you to grant this creative thinker his right to create a better world for all people. The world belongs to all.

Have you listened to your selves lately? Damn laughable I tell you, damn laughable. Your babble is nonsense. I advance a social discourse based on personal experience, much like the feminists have. Experience is the most valued thing in life, so remarked Henry Ford. You can take your Oxford and Yale degrees and you know where to place them. They mean nothing if they do not improve our social condition. You wield your position as editors on this site like a band of petty tyrants. All great ideas have had to smash conventional boundaries aand you will be the heads I smash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sendakite (talk • contribs) 22:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The encyclopedia is not an appropriate place to propagate this idea. If it has merit, it should be pursued in the traditional paths of social science publication, after which it will become legitimate material for an encyclopedia. HeureusementIci (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Richard 'Ritchy' Dubé

Please see neologism and memetics - Try to keep and open mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sendakite (talk • contribs) 13:21, 20 December 2008 (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.