Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Cesidian law

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 04:13, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cesidian law

Appears to be original research by "his majesty Cesidio Tallini" [1]. There are 375 Google hits for Cesidian law but they seem to be mostly variations on, or references to, versions of this document. --LeeHunter 03:54, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is nothing original about Cesidian law any more. It is available as a wholistic article on the Fifth World Wiki, or the new body of law is available in several wikis as the basis of Cesidian law, which is jus cerebri electronici or the right of the server. This concept is also mentioned in a related article about the Fifth World, and is also mentioned in the article about jus soli, or the right of territory. You also forget that Cesidian law is already the law of the Fifth World, and many individuals, some organizations, a community, and several Fifth World nations are already following this law, and recognise this law.--IndigoGenius 04:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I also disapprove of your concept of the "Fifth World". For that reason, and for others, I say delete. DS 02:47, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  On the bright side, his links made it much easier to clean up the other articles. --—Ben Brockert (42) 06:14, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This is a rant, and rants are not encyclopedic in addition to being original research. I would support a summary of the underlying belief system expressed here (although not using the term "Cesidian law", which is unique to this individual as far as I can tell), only because the delusions underlying it are common to a significant group of people. But this article is not that. --Kelly Martin 04:21, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  Is International law or Roman law or Mosaic law a rant? Please provide justification rather that ad hominem attacks, which are illogical. Please also provide your signature if you are a human being.--IndigoGenius 04:17, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete - original research/self-promotion/vanity. IndigoGenius is Cesidio Tallini. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. most of the article is the text of other (non-notable, vanity, original research) pages that have been already deleted. --—Ben Brockert (42) 05:22, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: original research/vanity/promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:41, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. If Ben Brokert's point is true, it seems like it should be speediable. Surely, just a few changes and a different title shouldn't get your original reseach another 5 days on Wikipedia while another VfD is conducted? --BM 12:59, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Specifically, the entire first section (Jus cerebri electronici) is the previous contents of Jus cerebri electronici. See Talk:Jus cerebri electronici/Delete. --—Ben Brockert (42) 15:49, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, original research, vanity. Rje 14:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete as vain, rantish original research. Wyss 23:24, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Looks like the New Year for you folks in the UTC time zone is a deja vu for me in the Pacific Standard Time zone. I know I've seen this. This has been deleted at least twice before, maybe more. Delete and pass the tinfoil hats and noisemakers. Happy New Year! - Lucky 6.9 01:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • You're thinking some of IndigoGenius's other pages which got listed here and deleted many months ago. As noted above, this page incorporates large chunks of text from them. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:49, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nonnotable vanity nonsense, speedy for stealth attempt to bring back already deleted pages if we care to, otherwise let it run out its days and get deleted normally. DreamGuy 03:01, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
• The only thing you guys will delete here is the idea of Cesidian law in the Wikipedia, not the fact that Cesidian law is already a legal standard, whether you lawless people follow it or not. The only thing you guys will delete here is the idea of a living Fifth World in the Wikipedia, not the fact that the Fifth World (or Age) has already started and is alive and well. You guys are like the rabbis in Jerusalem just prior to the destruction of the Temple. Your temples too, your sacred cows, shall be destroyed, including this temple here; you just don't realise how silly you are, but a few Native Americans already know who I am. --IndigoGenius 20:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  And a happy new year to you, Mr. Tallini. --—Ben Brockert (42) 21:19, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as original research and an attempt to recreate previously deleted material. -Sean Curtin 06:32, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. this. crap. Cleduc 07:19, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.