There is an article about greatly reknowned philosopher Chris Langham http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Michael_Langan , bar bouncer and radical auto-diadactic thinker.
The article about his world inspiring (tongue twister here guys) Cognative Theoretic Model of The Universe, led to an Afd. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cognitive-Theor... .
Lots of the editors there wondered why he was in wikipedia at all, never-mind his theories that have never gone through any kind of peer-review.
Do you think that such articles will stand under the current BLP wipeout?
mike
There have been a couple of AfDs on (IMO of course) philo-babble like this, and as best I recall, they all ended as "keep".
K but we have a new role of BLP bashes (and no i dont want to go through a list of phillo-babblists) will they still stand? just makes the whole BLP thing stupid if they rush (credible editors) devotees into an afd.
On 09/06/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
There have been a couple of AfDs on (IMO of course) philo-babble like this, and as best I recall, they all ended as "keep".
On 6/9/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
K but we have a new role of BLP bashes (and no i dont want to go through a list of phillo-babblists) will they still stand? just makes the whole BLP thing stupid if they rush (credible editors) devotees into an afd.
On 09/06/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
There have been a couple of AfDs on (IMO of course) philo-babble like this, and as best I recall, they all ended as "keep".
I'm a bit confused. Looking at the AfD (which is now closed), it seems to have been deleted on notability issues. But am I right that your concern is now about Langan's own article? If so, it seems pretty well sourced but looks a little sparse. I could see arguments made against his notability, but I doubt they'd be under BLP per se. If BLP 'tightens' notability requirements for people, it's for ethically responsible treatment of them as subjects.
I think if anyone challenged Langan, it would simply be borderline notability in a kind-of overall fashion. But then again, I've seen much stubbier looking articles than that. And with the Cognitive Theoretic Model article redirected to his, there's immediate room for improvement.
InkSplotch
new BLP is going mad - the guy is clearly mad but sourced?
Every time i open my watchlist its an Afd, Its worst than the black death.
Thanks for looking - :-)
On 09/06/07, InkSplotch inkblot14@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/9/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
K but we have a new role of BLP bashes (and no i dont want to go through a list of phillo-babblists) will they still stand? just makes the whole BLP thing stupid if they rush (credible editors) devotees into an afd.
On 09/06/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
There have been a couple of AfDs on (IMO of course) philo-babble like this, and as best I recall, they all ended as "keep".
I'm a bit confused. Looking at the AfD (which is now closed), it seems to have been deleted on notability issues. But am I right that your concern is now about Langan's own article? If so, it seems pretty well sourced but looks a little sparse. I could see arguments made against his notability, but I doubt they'd be under BLP per se. If BLP 'tightens' notability requirements for people, it's for ethically responsible treatment of them as subjects.
I think if anyone challenged Langan, it would simply be borderline notability in a kind-of overall fashion. But then again, I've seen much stubbier looking articles than that. And with the Cognitive Theoretic Model article redirected to his, there's immediate room for improvement.
InkSplotch
-- "Stercus, stercus, stercus, moritus sum!" _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Sorry, my last reply was very far from the mark. As per confusion (a)just wanted to get ideas about how to treat psuedo-philosophy (not just from bar bouncers to dons at oxford). When these guys show up as articles - can we PROD and see a lot of pdf links we cant see in a minute or evaluate, pop up from sites directly linked to the BIO.
On 09/06/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
new BLP is going mad - the guy is clearly mad but sourced?
Every time i open my watchlist its an Afd, Its worst than the black death.
Thanks for looking - :-)
On 09/06/07, InkSplotch inkblot14@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/9/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
K but we have a new role of BLP bashes (and no i dont want to go through a list of phillo-babblists) will they still stand? just makes the whole BLP thing stupid if they rush (credible editors) devotees into an afd.
On 09/06/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
There have been a couple of AfDs on (IMO of course) philo-babble like this, and as best I recall, they all ended as "keep".
I'm a bit confused. Looking at the AfD (which is now closed), it seems to have been deleted on notability issues. But am I right that your concern is now about Langan's own article? If so, it seems pretty well sourced but looks a little sparse. I could see arguments made against his notability, but I doubt they'd be under BLP per se. If BLP 'tightens' notability requirements for people, it's for ethically responsible treatment of them as subjects.
I think if anyone challenged Langan, it would simply be borderline notability in a kind-of overall fashion. But then again, I've seen much stubbier looking articles than that. And with the Cognitive Theoretic Model article redirected to his, there's immediate room for improvement.
InkSplotch
-- "Stercus, stercus, stercus, moritus sum!" _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
michael west wrote:
Sorry, my last reply was very far from the mark. As per confusion (a)just wanted to get ideas about how to treat psuedo-philosophy (not just from bar bouncers to dons at oxford). When these guys show up as articles - can we PROD and see a lot of pdf links we cant see in a minute or evaluate, pop up from sites directly linked to the BIO.
There needs to be a place in this world for lunatics. With a modest level of authentication about the silly things that they do or their silly philosophies there should be no problem with keeping them to a limited extent. By keeping them it remains easier to keep the subject of their interest under control, and without interminable arguments about deleting the articles. We've been dealing with Lingam for at least two years, and the amount of energy applied to removing all traces of his existence has been a total waste.
Ec
My feeling (which is of course going to annoy the daylights out of the fervent inclusionist) is that there's not a lot of point to documenting pseudo-science and bogo-philosophy that doesn't show some staying power.