Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meaninglessness

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-14 12:02Z

Meaninglessness

Meaninglessness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log

)

This seems like a vanity article. It consists entirely of writing of this Colin Leslie Dean person, and does not seem significant in any way. See also the talk page for Absurdism darkskyz 20:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Appears to be
  attribution.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Article exhibits meaninglessness of itself. Speaking with less pathetic jokingness, User:Fuhghettaboutit makes all the points. Autocracy 21:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, ... and wouldn't Nihilism already cover this? Autocracy 21:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and Nihilism appropriately attributed as well. --Charlene 21:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• you show your lack of intellectual acumum obviously the concepts are just too hard for you I will explian simply meaninglessness says even nihilism entials meaninglesness - even meaninglessness entials meaninglessness- can you get your mind around THAT— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamahucher (talk • contribs)
• Delete as original research which is not appropriately attributed. --Charlene 21:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This author has written a number of nonsensical articles like this for the sole purpose of promoting someone called Colin Leslie Dean (notice how the first three sections are all but bare, but the last one goes into great detail). Wavy G 23:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I am outstounded this article meaninglessness is being considered for deletion and other articles listed in the brief. It seems wikipedia is no more than a poor mans encyclopedia brittanica. It seem to be aligible for entry in wik you must first be in encyclopedia brittanica -so why not just go to encyclopedia brittanica . So much for open sourcing and internet democarcy Once again mainstream takes control of the net Wik may as well just get payed monkeys typing AUTHORATIVE articles so it can sell them to the highest bidder ie encyclopedia brittanica It seems all wik is is a watered down version of brittanica with articles which just reproduce briitanica written by amateurs who in effect just paraphrase more authorative sources —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gamahucher (talk • contribs) 16:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC).People are running around wik deleting entries that mention mr dean ie case in point an entry about his ideas in Absurdism was just completly removed based only on it basicvally has no britanica entry-ie not s a so called notable. Also entries on dreamtime and Indigenous Australians have also been flaged for removal . It seems wikipedians may as well jus go to brittanica paraphrase that then past in wiki In regard to mainsteam articles like philosophy, absurdism, poetry,dreamtime, anti-poetry wiki will only put entryies in only if they are already in britanica Wik may as well just get payed monkeys typing AUTHORATIVE articles so it can sell them to the highest bidder ie encyclopedia brittanica It seems all wik is is a watered down version of brittanica with articles which just reproduce briitanica written by amateurs who in effect just paraphrase more authorative sources. Wik in fact just pillages other authorative sources it is a parisite feeding of others works -like brittanica. You say you want wik to be an accepted authorative encyclo but all it is realy is a poor man brittanica hobbled tgether from other authorative sources on the CHEAP so wik want have to pay money for anything. So wat has the future instore : wik going private bought up by google and all the entries then making some corporation heaps of money through adverstising or some other ingeneous way to use the wikpedians hard work etc. Just go read brittanica— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamahucher (talk • contribs)

• Whatever. You can be "outstounded" all you want, but you have been informed numerous times what Wikipedia is, and what it is not, but you keep making the same straw man argument. So, maybe Wikipedia is just a bunch of payed monkeys making "authorative" articles, but maybe your work will be more "aligible" at Encyclopedia Brittanica. Wavy G 05:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - for the same reasons as the other entires on Wikipedia by this author - attmepting to use Wiki to promote a non-notable, self-published author. StuartDouglas 16:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This editor has gone through WP adding this original research to a number of articles; however, all of it has been reverted by other editors as OR, except for the Meaninglessness article itself. LastChanceToBe 00:52, 13 March 2007 (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.