Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gammamute

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. Mailer Diablo 11:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gammamute

Dicdef, if not nonsense. Delete. DMG413 17:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Incomprehensible. Probably nonsense. Clearly nn. Bucketsofg 18:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable conspiracycruft. Sandstein 18:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I am a member of the secret sect mentioned and I want to avoid this central concept to be exposed. — mark ✎ 19:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A secret sect so secret as to be completely unverifiable. Fan1967 23:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

*Keep per above, just to make the point that wikipedia isn't about respecting little secret societies. JoshuaZ 07:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC) Delete per Mark's clarification. JoshuaZ 16:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Just for the record, I was being ironic. — mark ✎ 08:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, because I am researching the article (and it seems others are as well), and more information comes to light every day, with better, and better sources. Could someone please inform me as to how I can use offline sources in wikipedia? Lou "Bob" Dobbs, III 07:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Note that 208.233.32.44 has now repeatedly tried to remove/modify votes. I just restored them again. JoshuaZ 19:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I do apologize for the confusion...I was under the impression that your comments could be removed after the problem was fixed. I will keep that from happening, again. I am a new user.

However, for this record, also note that JoshuaZ and mark have made repeated attempts to discredit this article, though have actually contributed nothing to the article as of the time of this comment. I strongly believe there is personal bias involved in these two users' activity on this article.

I believe dministrative mediation is very necessary at this point. 208.233.32.44 20:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

As for the rest of the problems, I'm really not sure which aspect of the article bucketsofg are refering to. Can you elaborate on a specific part of the article?

I'm not attempting to discredit. This information, unverifiable as it is, has no place in Wikipedia because we have a No Original Research policy. Besides, I think the concept isn't even notable enough to get included anyway. I say delete. — mark ✎ 08:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That is certainly a much more civil approach to get your point to be understood. This could have avoided a great deal of time, had you said that a week ago. Currently, I am working with the sources to get them released...I'm trying to expose something and avoid a lawsuit at the same time. I seriously question, however that you've attempted to research any part of the article, given your history of behavior with other users on this article and statements made on and about this article prior to the one you just made.

There is a book, Marco Rodin's "Aerodynamics" that can be cited, if I could just find it...I can find works "in Re" to it, but not the original work, other than the book I'm holding in my hand. Marco Rodin wasn't exactly a hack....he was a brilliant physicist...

Even that wouldn't account for the whole article, I do understand, sir, but I assure, I am working on it. If you could show some patience, as I requested, I can definately verify these sources. I just need time..surely you can understand the concept of delayed gratification.

If you can bear with us, we are working our tails off to get this completed...it's rather turning into a drain...as we're spending hours on the phone arguing with some of the members of this group to release interviews to certain medias.

The following users need to contact me to discuss what problems they have with the article:

• DMG413
• Sandstein

Lou "Bob" Dobbs, III 04:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry that I wasn't clear enough initially. However, I stand by my vote. I think we cannot afford to have unverifiable articles, and even when your contacts with certain people result in citable sources, I am not convinced at all of the notability of the concept. Also, please take note of Wikipedia:Reliable sources: not all sources are good sources.

If you ask me, 'Gammamute' just is one of the zillion pseudoscientific concepts that struggle to get included in Wikipedia. But Wikipedia is just a tertiary source — it is not the place to publish original research and hence it is not the proper venue for the publication and documentation of fringe concepts like this. I think the most sensible thing to do is to delete the article as it stands now, if consensus says so. Of course, nothing holds you back from working on an improved, referenced version at home (or wherever you like to work) first. But as I said, I doubt if it will ever be worthy of inclusion on its own merits. You might want to try wikinfo.org, where the rules seem to be slightly less stringent. — mark ✎ 16:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I will most definately continue researching this group at home, regardless of whether the article is deleted, however I will continue to find citable sources in the article.

I understand your point about original research. Perhaps I should go to the newspapers anonymously with what I have (much more than the article), and let them take it from there.

http://www.freedomdomain.com/email_1.html

Lou "Bob" Dobbs, III 19:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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.