Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paradox Foundation
- 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. Kirill Lokshin 05:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
NN Company NN webhosting company / poets coven / cum vanity press. Involved in apparent hoax promotion of poetry book as authoritative text in game theory, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brent_Henry_Waddington. Essentially advertisement/vanity for a NN company. Pete.Hurd 14:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no real evidence of notability. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 15:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this organization does not meet guidelines of WP:CORP or of WP:WEB. Furthermore, there is evidence of sustained bad faith posting and attempted hoaxing on wikipedia by the Vice President of this company. see the Brent Henry Waddington discussion linked by Pete Hurd above. Bwithh 16:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "Poets coven"? What is that supposed to mean Pete? I think 4,000 poets qualifies for notability. We should be discussing notability, not playing a blame game about an alleged hoax (and correct me if I'm wrong, the AfD for the "hoax" appears to be focused more on notability, not verifiability at this stage). FN 23:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you're wrong. If you actually read the discussion, the Afd for Brent Henry Waddington is still focused on verification, as people think that its all a hoax (note how you haven't attracted ANY keep votes apart from those by yourself and your sockpuppets. if a book does exist, it sure ain't about game theory. it'll probably be a print out of 300 of your poems or whatever. The consensus is that you are a hoaxer, but even if it wasnt a hoax, the book is non-notable. The Amazon hack wasn't convincing, sorry - how many times do we have to say this?. By the way, as you seem to fantasize about being in the financial industry, you should know that having a public history of engaging in hoaxes is not going to make recruiters love you. oh, and 4,000 members is not notable for a forum website Bwithh 04:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Also- worth discussion: is this a "corporation" under which the WP:CORP inchoate policies apply, or do we have different guidance to work with for registered foundations? FN 23:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Your poetry group's official name is "Paradox Inc." and it has been legally incorporated as an non-profit organization i.e. it is a non-profit corporation. See your own webpage here Bwithh 04:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Note FN's connection with the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brent Henry Waddington. - Dalbury 02:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This is part of the mess with the Brent Henry Waddington article. - Dalbury 02:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - (Note: I am affiliated with the paradox foundation) It seems to me that this article should be discussed under it's own merits without relation to the Brent Henry Waddington page. Howeman
- Comment. User:Alakon, who has been been heavily engaged in the discussion on Brent Henry Waddington, twice states there that he has a conection to Paradox, Inc., the publisher of Waddington's Trout. He linked the Paradox, Inc. listing as publisher of Trout in the Waddington article to this article. He has heavily edited this article, and uploaded the image of the logo used in this article. I suspect that User:Fn who has participated in this discussion is a sock puppet for User:Alakon. Some of us suspect that the Brent Henry Waddington article is a hoax, and the pattern of activity connected to this article could indicate that this article is a part of that hoax. - Dalbury 21:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have been with the Paradox Foundation for almost a year, and have proof of its existance dating back to at least October of 2003. So unless this is a very long hoax in the making, the Paradox Foundation was not created for the purpose of supporting a hoax. Just by looking at the sheer amount of material on Paradox Poetry and the other sites, it should be very clear that this is not part of a larger hoax, and should be analysed on it's own merit. Brendan 04:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Note: Brendan & Howeman are the same user (I got confused checking the history file to find Brendan's previous contributions) Pete.Hurd 06:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm saying that it looks like the Wikipedia article for the Paradox Foundation was created to support the Brent Henry Waddington hoax. - Dalbury 09:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have been with the Paradox Foundation for almost a year, and have proof of its existance dating back to at least October of 2003. So unless this is a very long hoax in the making, the Paradox Foundation was not created for the purpose of supporting a hoax. Just by looking at the sheer amount of material on Paradox Poetry and the other sites, it should be very clear that this is not part of a larger hoax, and should be analysed on it's own merit. Brendan 04:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. User:Alakon, who has been been heavily engaged in the discussion on Brent Henry Waddington, twice states there that he has a conection to Paradox, Inc., the publisher of Waddington's Trout. He linked the Paradox, Inc. listing as publisher of Trout in the Waddington article to this article. He has heavily edited this article, and uploaded the image of the logo used in this article. I suspect that User:Fn who has participated in this discussion is a sock puppet for User:Alakon. Some of us suspect that the Brent Henry Waddington article is a hoax, and the pattern of activity connected to this article could indicate that this article is a part of that hoax. - Dalbury 21:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have added a comment on possible sock puppetry in this dicussion to the talk page. - Dalbury 00:44, 6 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.