Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sentinels and Guides as Non-Human Species

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Sentinels and Guides as Non-Human Species[edit]

Nonsense presented as fact. At best, could be called original research. SWAdair | Talk 03:53, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. At worst, it could be called non-sensical. func(talk) 04:02, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 04:39, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg 05:33, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Omits very important subspecies, the Wikipedians. --Ianb 08:42, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, reads like a badly copied copyvio to me. Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 12:54, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Very likely copyvio, but we don't need a non-copyvio version, either. Geogre 13:54, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. So much typing, so little point.... Fire Star 18:16, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Divorced from reality. Gwalla | Talk 20:54, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, not nonsense. After all it does mention this being a theory! -- Old Right 22:00, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • comment: That has to be the most ridiculous rationale for a keep vote I've ever seen. It even beats "Notable, because he's a farmer.". Gwalla | Talk 16:43, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Being a theory isn't sufficient for deserving an article. There are all sorts of possible theories and theories held by one person or a small group of people. We want to include theories which are more well-known than that. Livajo 23:47, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 04:15, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep!- Agree with what Old Right wrote. -- Crevaner 12:47, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research based on a woeful misunderstanding of popular science and wild speculation. Also questionable sanity and probably appears on a webpage somewhere already. Merely claiming to be 'a theory' doesn't make anything notable, theories need to be tested. Average Earthman 13:16, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - I theorize its deletion - Tεxτurε 17:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - the article is ridiculously convoluted with little hope of improving, and describes a "theory" which is incomprehensible. If there is a legitimate theory, it needs a portrayal in this encyclopedia which differs so greatly from the current article that deletion is by far the wisest course of action. Jwrosenzweig 21:25, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Theory? Inventing a fictional universe and calling it theory doesn't make it one (and it especially doen't make it encyclopedic) especially when the article begins with the self-contradictory phrase "Much is known about Sentinels and Guides". I know it's fantasy. ClockworkTroll 06:47, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I would argue that this could have been speedy deleted. Patent nonsense sums it up really well. It would take an explanation of what a Sentinel and a Guide are to raise it out of that category. In any case, delete. DJ Clayworth 20:43, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)