Monkey Day – Deletion overturned, relisted – trialsanderrors 05:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Monkey Day (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Overturn this deletion as the closer appears to have interpreted the debate's arguments and applicable policies incorrectly. Reasons given for deletion were "no reputable references," "Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day," "per nom," and "Come on people this does not begin to rate as notable." Reasons for keeping were "references all look legit, cover different years and different countries and even US states." I'm not sure what the content of the article was when AfDed, but this mirror does show external links to references in several newspapers across the U.S. and Canada as well as in The Financial Times of Deutschland. The idea that there are no reputable sources for this topic is clearly incorrect and easily discounted, as is the idea that a topic covered in newspapers over several years in three countries is equivalent to something simply made up in school one day that "does not begin to rate as notable." Dragonfiend 00:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note The sources listed in the article during the AfD were Monkey Day website, *** Monkeys In The News blog, * Article in Denver's Westword, * Article in The Financial Times of Deutschland (subscription), * Article in Canada's Hour Weekly, * Article in L.A. City Beat, * Article in Detroit Metro Times. -- Jreferee t/c 00:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn deletion** From looking at the mirror, this passes WP:N. Articles devoted to it in newspapers in three countries constitute reliable independent sources. Something's telling me that these references were removed (sic) before the AfD, or the people who commented to delete and the closing admin didn't bother to look at the references. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 00:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn -- As the article cited significant coverage of its topic in multiple, third party reliable sources, the celebration was presumed to be notable per Wikipedia's general notability guideline, and no arguments sufficient to overcome this presumption were presented in the AFD discussion. John254 00:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion valid AFD, no valid sources, all of them are altenative weekly newspapers, blogs, and tablods, and the monkeyday.com site, far from reliable. Jbeach ^sup 16:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn, multiple citations to reliable sources. Whatever Jbeach56 may think of alternative weekly newspapers, they meet WP:RS. Most of the delete arguments were based on WP:NFT, but that guideline is for things not yet well known to the rest of the world. Obviously if newspapers (even free ones) in multiple urban centers are writing about it, it is not limited to some high school cafeteria. Those !voters were incorrect. --Dhartung \| Talk 17:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn Agree that multiple reliable sources over that wide a range geographically, with multiple years of coverage meets WP:N. Guideline was misapplied in final decision, and none of the delete arguments were substantive. Horrorshowj 17:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Weak Overturn and strong relist if overturned - Wikipedia is for things made up in school one day if there is enough reliable source material to support the topic. The delete reasoning really did not address any of the references in the article during the AfD, so it would be hard pressed to say that the delete consensus was the stronger argument. On the other hand, the delete outcome seems the correct result. Right result with out a clear delete consensus reasoning ... I would not have a problem with a quick return to AfD so that the source material can be discussed. -- Jreferee t/c 00:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Apathetic as closing admin. —Kurykh 15:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] uphold deletion - quoting one deleter in the Afd: "Strong Delete - an event without any notability. I quote from one of their links "And, actually, it won’t be many humans and they won’t be spread very far around the globe. In fact, it might just be a couple of wacky art students in Lansing partying in someone’s basement." Come on people this does not begin to rate as notable." Comparing ghits, "International Talk Like a Pirate day" generates about 275k ghits. "Monkey Day" generates 45k ghits. Add "New York Times" to the search, and Pirate gets about 12k ghits, while Monkey Day only get 570 ghits. Significantly less notable. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment -- A small number of search engine results does not necessarily imply non-notability. John254 03:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Monkey Day – Deletion overturned, relisted – trialsanderrors 05:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Overturn this deletion as the closer appears to have interpreted the debate's arguments and applicable policies incorrectly. Reasons given for deletion were "no reputable references," "Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day," "per nom," and "Come on people this does not begin to rate as notable." Reasons for keeping were "references all look legit, cover different years and different countries and even US states." I'm not sure what the content of the article was when AfDed, but this mirror does show external links to references in several newspapers across the U.S. and Canada as well as in The Financial Times of Deutschland. The idea that there are no reputable sources for this topic is clearly incorrect and easily discounted, as is the idea that a topic covered in newspapers over several years in three countries is equivalent to something simply made up in school one day that "does not begin to rate as notable." Dragonfiend 00:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note The sources listed in the article during the AfD were Monkey Day website, ***** Monkeys In The News blog, ***** Article in Denver's Westword, ***** Article in The Financial Times of Deutschland (subscription), ***** Article in Canada's Hour Weekly, ***** Article in L.A. City Beat, ***** Article in Detroit Metro Times. -- Jreferee t/c 00:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion From looking at the mirror, this passes WP:N. Articles devoted to it in newspapers in three countries constitute reliable independent sources. Something's telling me that these references were removed (sic) before the AfD, or the people who commented to delete and the closing admin didn't bother to look at the references. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 00:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn -- As the article cited significant coverage of its topic in multiple, third party reliable sources, the celebration was presumed to be notable per Wikipedia's general notability guideline, and no arguments sufficient to overcome this presumption were presented in the AFD discussion. John254 00:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion valid AFD, no valid sources, all of them are altenative weekly newspapers, blogs, and tablods, and the monkeyday.com site, far from reliable. Jbeach ^sup 16:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, multiple citations to reliable sources. Whatever Jbeach56 may think of alternative weekly newspapers, they meet WP:RS. Most of the delete arguments were based on WP:NFT, but that guideline is for things not yet well known to the rest of the world. Obviously if newspapers (even free ones) in multiple urban centers are writing about it, it is not limited to some high school cafeteria. Those !voters were incorrect. --Dhartung | Talk 17:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Agree that multiple reliable sources over that wide a range geographically, with multiple years of coverage meets WP:N. Guideline was misapplied in final decision, and none of the delete arguments were substantive. Horrorshowj 17:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Overturn and strong relist if overturned - Wikipedia is for things made up in school one day if there is enough reliable source material to support the topic. The delete reasoning really did not address any of the references in the article during the AfD, so it would be hard pressed to say that the delete consensus was the stronger argument. On the other hand, the delete outcome seems the correct result. Right result with out a clear delete consensus reasoning ... I would not have a problem with a quick return to AfD so that the source material can be discussed. -- Jreferee t/c 00:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apathetic as closing admin. —Kurykh 15:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
uphold deletion - quoting one deleter in the Afd: "Strong Delete - an event without any notability. I quote from one of their links "And, actually, it won’t be many humans and they won’t be spread very far around the globe. In fact, it might just be a couple of wacky art students in Lansing partying in someone’s basement." Come on people this does not begin to rate as notable." Comparing ghits, "International Talk Like a Pirate day" generates about 275k ghits. "Monkey Day" generates 45k ghits. Add "New York Times" to the search, and Pirate gets about 12k ghits, while Monkey Day only get 570 ghits. Significantly less notable. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- A small number of search engine results does not necessarily imply non-notability. John254 03:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Jennifer Moore – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 05:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jennifer Moore (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` This article was incorrectly deleted, without any satisfactory arguments having been provided favoring deletion. Since the article cited significant coverage of its topic in multiple, third party reliable sources, Jennifer Moore was presumed to be notable per Wikipedia's general notability guideline. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL was also advanced as an argument for deletion. However, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL actually states that "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." Thus, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is a mere restatement of the applicability of Wikipedia's notability guidelines to deceased subjects, and did not actually furnish an independant rationale for deletion. WP:BLP1E concerns, though raised, were unpersuasive, since the subject of this article was deceased. The only remaining argument for deletion was the purely subjective assertion that this person is non-notable, which failed to overcome the presumption of notability conferred by the general notability guideline as previously described. My closure of this discussion, correctly citing the above reasons for retention of the article, was incorrectly overturned and replaced with an explanation-free deletion. The deletion of this article, purely on the basis of vote counting, without any explanation of a legitimate policy-based rationale for deletion, violates Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus, which expressly provides that "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." The problems with this deletion are more fundamental than mere policy and guideline violations, however. Deleting articles whose subjects meet the relatively objective standard of notability set forth in the general notability guideline, but are nonetheless deemed to to be non-notable on the basis of purely subjective criteria, risks the destruction of much encyclopedic content, simply because the editors who happened to participate in given AFDs didn't personally believe that the relevant subjects were sufficiently important for inclusion. John254 23:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Relist There was possibly some confusion here. There was a simultaneous discussion at AN/I and a individual discussion of several similar articles. The AfD showed inadequate discussion of the specifics of this particular one. I do not know what I will !vote when it is re-discussed--I am a little ambivalent about these--but it needs a fuller discussion. DGG (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] A closing admin is not supposed to substitute their judgment for the community's. When someone who could close disagrees with the community consensus thus far, they should comment, as both Bearian and I did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proportional approval voting. Thus, the original closure was incorrect, it should have been a comment. It was also wrong, as WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is not just a restatement of the notability guidelines (it guides how we right about notable dead people, not just whether we write about them). And no guideline creates a presumption of or against notability. It instead reflects the community standard by which we normally judge notablity. But it also can't be read in isolation from other policies and guidelines, and the initial closer completely ignored the references to WP:BLP1E and WP:BLP in delete opinions, and thus did not reflect the debate. Thus, we must endorse the overturning of the non-admin close as it was just plain wrong. The sources referred to in the article were not specifically discussed or analyzed in the discussion. The discussion represented a clear consensus for deletion, and I see nothing in the article, AFD discussion, or nomination here to merit an overturn. I thus endorse deletion. GRBerry 14:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - AFD closed the wrong way by a non-admin. WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E states that, for biographies, there needs to be a sustained notability. Will ^(talk) 15:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse final closure as delete. I considered this AFD a bit but couldn't make up my mind; I saw some argument for keeping but I think it's a pretty weak case. Regardless, closing against the clear consensus was incorrect (and out of bounds for a non-admin). John254 should really consider carefully whether his closures meet the criteria. --Dhartung \| Talk 17:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion, this closure was not in the bounds of a non-admin closure, and consensus was clear. The AFD was re-closed correctly. --Core desat 00:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion - The AfD was closed properly by the admin, a decision well within reason. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - The topic meets WP:N, but consensus seems to want the article deleted anyway. Had I seen the article, I would have speedy deleted it per WP:COPYVIO. The verbatim reprint in the Wikipedia article so much newspaper coverage could have been seen as an attempt to "honor departed friends and relatives" under WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. The non admin improper close of this ambiguous result discussion seems to have been taken into account by the closing admin. Also, when the same non-admin specifically targets ambiguous result AfD discussions related to murders, it becomes clear that the non-admin has a conflict of interest in the topic, and any such close is a violation of Non-administrators closing discussions. The closing admin could have taken that into account as well in regards to whether the article would comply with WP:NOT in the future. Helping admins close AfDs is one thing. While Wikipedia may end up with an article on the topic, consensus seems to be that it is too soon after the murder for the topic to attract those editors capable of producing a Wikipedia article that will meet Wikipedia's article standards. No prejudice against returning to DRV in six months to revisit the issue. -- Jreferee t/c 16:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment -- The claim that I closed an AFD discussion as "keep" when the article was subject to speedy deletion as a copyright violation is quite simply incorrect. Articles are only subject to speedy deletion as copyright violations where the infringing text constitutes the entire content of the page or such a substantial portion that the article would be subject to speedy deletion on other grounds if the infringing text were removed. Even assuming, in arguendo, that the newspaper quotations in Jennifer Moore did constitute copyright violations, they could simply be edited out, while retaining substantial content. AFD is not cleanup. John254 03:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Jennifer Moore – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 05:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This article was incorrectly deleted, without any satisfactory arguments having been provided favoring deletion. Since the article cited significant coverage of its topic in multiple, third party reliable sources, Jennifer Moore was presumed to be notable per Wikipedia's general notability guideline. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL was also advanced as an argument for deletion. However, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL actually states that "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." Thus, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is a mere restatement of the applicability of Wikipedia's notability guidelines to deceased subjects, and did not actually furnish an independant rationale for deletion. WP:BLP1E concerns, though raised, were unpersuasive, since the subject of this article was deceased. The only remaining argument for deletion was the purely subjective assertion that this person is non-notable, which failed to overcome the presumption of notability conferred by the general notability guideline as previously described. My closure of this discussion, correctly citing the above reasons for retention of the article, was incorrectly overturned and replaced with an explanation-free deletion. The deletion of this article, purely on the basis of vote counting, without any explanation of a legitimate policy-based rationale for deletion, violates Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus, which expressly provides that "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." The problems with this deletion are more fundamental than mere policy and guideline violations, however. Deleting articles whose subjects meet the relatively objective standard of notability set forth in the general notability guideline, but are nonetheless deemed to to be non-notable on the basis of purely subjective criteria, risks the destruction of much encyclopedic content, simply because the editors who happened to participate in given AFDs didn't personally believe that the relevant subjects were sufficiently important for inclusion. John254 23:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist There was possibly some confusion here. There was a simultaneous discussion at AN/I and a individual discussion of several similar articles. The AfD showed inadequate discussion of the specifics of this particular one. I do not know what I will !vote when it is re-discussed--I am a little ambivalent about these--but it needs a fuller discussion. DGG (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A closing admin is not supposed to substitute their judgment for the community's. When someone who could close disagrees with the community consensus thus far, they should comment, as both Bearian and I did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proportional approval voting. Thus, the original closure was incorrect, it should have been a comment. It was also wrong, as WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is not just a restatement of the notability guidelines (it guides how we right about notable dead people, not just whether we write about them). And no guideline creates a presumption of or against notability. It instead reflects the community standard by which we normally judge notablity. But it also can't be read in isolation from other policies and guidelines, and the initial closer completely ignored the references to WP:BLP1E and WP:BLP in delete opinions, and thus did not reflect the debate. Thus, we must endorse the overturning of the non-admin close as it was just plain wrong. The sources referred to in the article were not specifically discussed or analyzed in the discussion. The discussion represented a clear consensus for deletion, and I see nothing in the article, AFD discussion, or nomination here to merit an overturn. I thus endorse deletion. GRBerry 14:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - AFD closed the wrong way by a non-admin. WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E states that, for biographies, there needs to be a sustained notability. Will ^(talk) 15:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse final closure as delete. I considered this AFD a bit but couldn't make up my mind; I saw some argument for keeping but I think it's a pretty weak case. Regardless, closing against the clear consensus was incorrect (and out of bounds for a non-admin). John254 should really consider carefully whether his closures meet the criteria. --Dhartung | Talk 17:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, this closure was not in the bounds of a non-admin closure, and consensus was clear. The AFD was re-closed correctly. --Core desat 00:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - The AfD was closed properly by the admin, a decision well within reason. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The topic meets WP:N, but consensus seems to want the article deleted anyway. Had I seen the article, I would have speedy deleted it per WP:COPYVIO. The verbatim reprint in the Wikipedia article so much newspaper coverage could have been seen as an attempt to "honor departed friends and relatives" under WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. The non admin improper close of this ambiguous result discussion seems to have been taken into account by the closing admin. Also, when the same non-admin specifically targets ambiguous result AfD discussions related to murders, it becomes clear that the non-admin has a conflict of interest in the topic, and any such close is a violation of Non-administrators closing discussions. The closing admin could have taken that into account as well in regards to whether the article would comply with WP:NOT in the future. Helping admins close AfDs is one thing. While Wikipedia may end up with an article on the topic, consensus seems to be that it is too soon after the murder for the topic to attract those editors capable of producing a Wikipedia article that will meet Wikipedia's article standards. No prejudice against returning to DRV in six months to revisit the issue. -- Jreferee t/c 16:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The claim that I closed an AFD discussion as "keep" when the article was subject to speedy deletion as a copyright violation is quite simply incorrect. Articles are only subject to speedy deletion as copyright violations where the infringing text constitutes the entire content of the page or such a substantial portion that the article would be subject to speedy deletion on other grounds if the infringing text were removed. Even assuming, in arguendo, that the newspaper quotations in Jennifer Moore did constitute copyright violations, they could simply be edited out, while retaining substantial content. AFD is not cleanup. John254 03:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Calli Cox – History partially restored; edits containing personal information remain deleted – trialsanderrors 05:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Calli Cox (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` This porn star article has been repeatedly speedily deleted and is now protected from recreation. However, she is notable per WP:BIO as she has been nominated for six notable awards: 2003 AVN Female Performer of the Year, 2003 AVN Best Sex Scene Coupling,[1] 2002 AVN Best New Starlet and 2002 AVN Best Group Sex Scene (3 times)[2]. She has had further coverage here: [3], [4], [5]. Epbr123 23:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn, as this and this constitute sufficient coverage in reliable sources as to establish a presumption of this person's notability per Wikipedia's general notability guideline. As such a presumption of notability has been established, the article is clearly no longer eligible for speedy deletion. John254 02:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn Epbr version of the article only, everything else was deleted because of major BLP concerns by the fountation Jbeach ^sup 16:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and source article for notability. I presume the Foundation edits are in the article history? It would be nice if there were some permanent indication that could be made to warn editors properly. But it does look like we can have an article based on the ifnromation provided, we just need to be careful about whatever material was previously removed. --Dhartung \| Talk 17:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] The fountation are the ones that mostly deleted this article in the first place, for major WP:BLP concerns including personal info, those versions can't be restored. Jbeach ^sup 22:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] I understand that. But there's no flagging or guidance available on what not to do, which is frustrating from an editor's point of view. This is more a gripe about the process. Maybe we need a "contact OTRS ticket processor" template or something to add to the protection template, so that things can be discussed privately. --Dhartung \| Talk —Preceding comment was added at 18:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn Epbr is correct, 6 award nominations greatly exceeds the standards for pornographic actors. Additionally, this one can probably pass WP:N even without the awards. If there are BLP concerns, they definitely need to be addressed on the talk page. Horrorshowj 17:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn all but those deleted for BLP concerns (in other words, Epbr's version), add those sources to the article and there you go. --Core desat 00:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Allow recreation but keep history deleted (for now) - But if it is more of the same unreferenced, BLP problem material, it will be speedy deleted. All the information I found relates to her 2002 Campus Invasion film that used Indiana University students. If you can find enough biography material in those stories, write a biography on Calli Cox. If you can't, use the material to develop an article on Campus Invasion (film). Don't try to fit a round peg in a square hole. Also, don't use any of the students names in the article or provide any other such identifying information. Comment Here's some info for the article: (1) UPI Entertainment News, February 11, 2002, Jockstrip: The world as we know it (writing "Some 20 to 30 Indiana University students participated in the filming of a pornographic movie, some of which was shot in a university dorm. The movie, titled "Campus Invasion," is expected to be released some time this winter and will feature footage of the students engaging in oral sex with adult film actresses, Calli Cox, a publicist for Shane Enterprises, told the Indiana Daily Student."); (2) Phoenix New Times September 5, 2002, (3) UPI October 23, 2002; (4) Los Angeles Times October 24, 2002' (5) Fort Wayne News Sentinel October 28, 2002 (search Sentinel archives for "All fun and games - until a film crew invades IU"); (6) July 25, 2007 -- Jreferee t/c 16:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Calli Cox – History partially restored; edits containing personal information remain deleted – trialsanderrors 05:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This porn star article has been repeatedly speedily deleted and is now protected from recreation. However, she is notable per WP:BIO as she has been nominated for six notable awards: 2003 AVN Female Performer of the Year, 2003 AVN Best Sex Scene Coupling,[1] 2002 AVN Best New Starlet and 2002 AVN Best Group Sex Scene (3 times)[2]. She has had further coverage here: [3], [4], [5]. Epbr123 23:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, as this and this constitute sufficient coverage in reliable sources as to establish a presumption of this person's notability per Wikipedia's general notability guideline. As such a presumption of notability has been established, the article is clearly no longer eligible for speedy deletion. John254 02:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Epbr version of the article only, everything else was deleted because of major BLP concerns by the fountation Jbeach ^sup 16:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and source article for notability. I presume the Foundation edits are in the article history? It would be nice if there were some permanent indication that could be made to warn editors properly. But it does look like we can have an article based on the ifnromation provided, we just need to be careful about whatever material was previously removed. --Dhartung | Talk 17:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The fountation are the ones that mostly deleted this article in the first place, for major WP:BLP concerns including personal info, those versions can't be restored. Jbeach ^sup 22:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand that. But there's no flagging or guidance available on what not to do, which is frustrating from an editor's point of view. This is more a gripe about the process. Maybe we need a "contact OTRS ticket processor" template or something to add to the protection template, so that things can be discussed privately. --Dhartung | Talk —Preceding comment was added at 18:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Epbr is correct, 6 award nominations greatly exceeds the standards for pornographic actors. Additionally, this one can probably pass WP:N even without the awards. If there are BLP concerns, they definitely need to be addressed on the talk page. Horrorshowj 17:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn all but those deleted for BLP concerns (in other words, Epbr's version), add those sources to the article and there you go. --Core desat 00:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation but keep history deleted (for now) - But if it is more of the same unreferenced, BLP problem material, it will be speedy deleted. All the information I found relates to her 2002 Campus Invasion film that used Indiana University students. If you can find enough biography material in those stories, write a biography on Calli Cox. If you can't, use the material to develop an article on Campus Invasion (film). Don't try to fit a round peg in a square hole. Also, don't use any of the students names in the article or provide any other such identifying information. Comment Here's some info for the article: (1) UPI Entertainment News, February 11, 2002, Jockstrip: The world as we know it (writing "Some 20 to 30 Indiana University students participated in the filming of a pornographic movie, some of which was shot in a university dorm. The movie, titled "Campus Invasion," is expected to be released some time this winter and will feature footage of the students engaging in oral sex with adult film actresses, Calli Cox, a publicist for Shane Enterprises, told the Indiana Daily Student."); (2) Phoenix New Times September 5, 2002, (3) UPI October 23, 2002; (4) Los Angeles Times October 24, 2002' (5) Fort Wayne News Sentinel October 28, 2002 (search Sentinel archives for "All fun and games - until a film crew invades IU"); (6) July 25, 2007 -- Jreferee t/c 16:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Jamie Chandler – A7 deletion endorsed. This closure has no bearing on the creation of a valid article if the sources establish notability – trialsanderrors 04:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jamie Chandler (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` This should be restored as it is now notable, beacause he has played for England U19's — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunderland06 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Boy oh boy, that unsigned comment is not good - it illustrates that you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia. But your contribs indicate you are, so I'll wave it off. Anyway, endorse deletion as the Google test brings up only one hit - and it contains one sentence in German (Jamie Chandler ist U-19 Nationalspeieler für England), which, as to the best of my knowledge, says "Jamie Chandler is a U-19 national player for England." That's a trivial mention, and as there are no other sources, Chandler is not notable. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion until less ambiguous confirmation of his WP:BIO passing is available. I am not of the impression that just being a U-19 player is sufficient. (As for the signature, anybody can forget to do that -- I think I've done it two or three times this week for one reason or another.) --Dhartung \| Talk 17:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment Sum total of the deleted article was: "Jamie Chandler (born 24 March 1989) is a midfielder who currently plays for Sunderland." - TexasAndroid 15:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and list at AfD - The article was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7's lack of importance/significance in the article. The newly presented information, he has played for England U19, seems to provide enough importance/significance to squeek by A7. He does appear in the news [6], [7], so a five day discussion at AfD may help bring out enough references. -- Jreferee t/c 15:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Jamie Chandler – A7 deletion endorsed. This closure has no bearing on the creation of a valid article if the sources establish notability – trialsanderrors 04:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This should be restored as it is now notable, beacause he has played for England U19's — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunderland06 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boy oh boy, that unsigned comment is not good - it illustrates that you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia. But your contribs indicate you are, so I'll wave it off. Anyway, endorse deletion as the Google test brings up only one hit - and it contains one sentence in German (Jamie Chandler ist U-19 Nationalspeieler für England), which, as to the best of my knowledge, says "Jamie Chandler is a U-19 national player for England." That's a trivial mention, and as there are no other sources, Chandler is not notable. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion until less ambiguous confirmation of his WP:BIO passing is available. I am not of the impression that just being a U-19 player is sufficient. (As for the signature, anybody can forget to do that -- I think I've done it two or three times this week for one reason or another.) --Dhartung | Talk 17:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sum total of the deleted article was: "Jamie Chandler (born 24 March 1989) is a midfielder who currently plays for Sunderland." - TexasAndroid 15:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AfD - The article was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7's lack of importance/significance in the article. The newly presented information, he has played for England U19, seems to provide enough importance/significance to squeek by A7. He does appear in the news [6], [7], so a five day discussion at AfD may help bring out enough references. -- Jreferee t/c 15:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Talk:Langmaker – Restored since article now exists – Eluchil404 15:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Talk:Langmaker (edit \| [[Talk:Talk:Langmaker\|talk]] \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Talk page speedily deleted because main page was deleted. Main page is now restored, so please speedy restore the talk page as well. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 01:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] The page was not restored; it was recreated. The deleted talk contents predate the current article page content & aren't really relevant. While I don't have a objection to it being restored, I don't see the point. Simply create a new talk page if new discussions are needed. -- JLaTondre 02:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Talk:Langmaker – Restored since article now exists – Eluchil404 15:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Talk page speedily deleted because main page was deleted. Main page is now restored, so please speedy restore the talk page as well. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 01:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page was not restored; it was recreated. The deleted talk contents predate the current article page content & aren't really relevant. While I don't have a objection to it being restored, I don't see the point. Simply create a new talk page if new discussions are needed. -- JLaTondre 02:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The Fundamental Dilator in the Hypergeometrical Universe Model – Closing this, deletion endorsed. The nominator conceded that this is "novel research." We don't publish novel research, ever, no matter how important; see two of our most important policies: Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not – Chick Bowen 01:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Fundamental Dilator in the Hypergeometrical Universe Model (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Hypergeometrical Universe - Theory of Everything (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Below is the original discussion for the Hypergeometrical Universe Theory which has been published and peer reviewed. Please follow the links associated with the Quantization in Astrophysics book. The Hypergeometrical Standard Model will be published by the end of October in a Hadron Physics book. None of them were initiated by me. These are peer-reviewed books. Quantization in astrophysics, Brownian motion and supersymmetry: by Florentin Smarandache; V Christianto Amazon Description of the Book Contents Mr. Bachmann set my new page into a speedy deletion process which let no space for reviewing prior comments directed at my theory. He did not make any substantiate comment. He stated that my work was a HOAX, which did not stand scrutiny. Below are some of the comments which are obviously out of place since the theory has been peer review and published. Snide comments such as "Quaint or WP:BOLLOCKS" have no merit since the theory is peer reviewed and published and show lack of civility unworthy to Wikipedia. They did not have any merit at the time of their issuance. Any disagreement with the content of the work should be directed to a journal or at least should be made clear to me. There is no copywrights violation in this page since all work is mine. By the way, there is and there was't any copywright violations. Five dimensional spacetimes are common (normally they have compact dimensions like Kaluza-Klein). There has not being published a single model in which the 3D Universe is a shock-wave traveling at the speed of light. That hypothesis together with the Fundamental Dilator model allow for the unification of Gravitation and Electromagnetism. Had the reviewer noticed that detail, he/she would not mention that my work has been done before. The other comments deserve no reply, but if you need answer to any of my prior reviewers please let me know. The Fundamental Dilator is a departure from the concept of Particle. Electrons, Protons, Antiprotons and Positrons are all modeled as different phases of the same 4D deformationalcoherence. This means that in this theory, those four particles displace the same 4D volume as they travel along the radial direction, thus having the same 4DMass. This theory is an extensive theory and thus can only be published in books due to its scope. It is difficult for me to cover all the details in this communication, but I will be more than willing to explain anything to anyone. If you have any questions or issues with respect to the page, please let me know. I will be happy to clarify anything. Thanks, Marco Pereira Wow, those links show that an article written by a Marco Pereira was published: proving only that an article was published. Unfortunately, I couldn't find "Hypergeometrical Universe Model" among the links. It's a bit hard to believe that the article in the PDF file was published though, as it's incredibly poorly written. As for meriting an article on Wikipedia, Hypergeometrical Universe Model is like a single particle floating along the FS boundary. Jim62sch 23:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] WOW. We have a literary critic among us. The book was published and here is a pdf with all the book contents including my contribution. Quantization in Astrophysics Book If you have any content criticism, I will be happy to hear. If you want to rewrite my papers, you are welcome to do so. The fact is that this is a creative theory that makes a Proton, Electron, AntiProton and Positron to be the same coherence between stationary states of a 4D space. This means that the concept of Particle has been replaced by this 4D deformational coherence traveling at the speed of light. Hence the model does not corresponds to a "Particle floating on FS". Unlike other Kaluza-Klein like theories, this one proposes that the Universe is a 4D shockwave traveling at the speed of light. If this idea has been considered in the past, please let me know the reference. If you have any scientific objection to this hypothesis, please let me know. Please show some self-respect and provide a meaningful criticism. Thanks, Marco Pereira You misunderstand. Nobody doubts its existence, but existence is insufficient. Since the only contributor to the Wikipedia article appears to be the author of the subject article, this looks like original research or a novel synthesis. There is no evidence that this concept has received significant independent critical attention. This search [8] indicates not, as does [9] which indicates that the entire concept of the "hypergeometrical universe" is essentially yours, and maybe a very small group of others. See WP:FRINGE for guidelines on how we handle such things. Please also give citations for discussion of this subject in the major scientific journals. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion Until authors independent of the creator write about this theory it is unfit for inclusion in Wikipedia. This general theme of the initial discussion has not been addressed by the new version or this nomination. ~ trialsanderrors 16:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. "Hoax" may not be the most accurate word for a real, if idiosyncratic, view of metaphysics, but we really do need that independent critical attention. Being real isn't enough. --Dhartung \| Talk 17:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] endorse deletion per comments of JzG as well as Dhartung's remark. JoshuaZ 23:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] The Fundamental Dilator in the Hypergeometrical Universe Model It is nice that you people are having a little more appreciation towards my theory. I thought that Dieter calling it a HOAX or someone else calling it from Star Trek a little childish. As I mentioned, I appreciate your efforts to keep crackpots from Wikipedia. I understand the risk, personal risk, you people face by being too much of an inclusionist. On the other hand, I am sure you understand that managing risk is a matter of equilibrium - like walking a tight rope. Being tooooo safe and you will keep novel ideas out, you will prevent the dissemination of what might be a great idea. Today's Science is very reactionary. My theory is currently 80 pages long and cannot be defended in chunks of 5 pages. It is a broad theory with the unification of Gravitation and Electromagnetism and a replacement for the Standard Model- a pilar of support of what that we hold near and dear. I have to confess that the breadth and innovation that my theory brings is a hindrance to its dissemimation. People like to see a constant build towards something. I analysed all physics and restructured it. The theory starts at a Classical Relativistic level with the proposition of a new topology for the Universe (a ligthspeed outwards traveling shockwave 3D Universe embedded in a four dimensional Cartesian spatial manifold). It introduces absolute time and reference frames which are not observable within the 4D relativistic spacetime. Einstein sought throughout his life the hidden variable that would make the transition between classical and quantum mechanics. With the introduction of the Fundamental Dilator paradigm, particles became shape shifting 4D displacement volumes -corresponding to the coherence betwee stationary 4D metric deformational states. Proton, antiproton, electron and positron are modeled as just phases of a 4D volume that spins while in contact with the 3D Fabric of Space. The displacent volume is modeled as a quantity proportional to our 3DMass. From that proportionality relationship, I was able to assign a 4D mass (4D displacement volume equivalent) for the fundamental dilator equal to the sum of one electron and one proton (1.00785 a.m.u.). Using simple logic, I derived Newton's Gravitational Law, Gauss Electrostatics Law and the Biot-Savart Law. The non-methaphysical character of my theory becomes evident when I calculate from first principles two Cosmological Constants: vacuum permitivity and vacuum magnetic susceptibility. The equations are shown below Image:Epsilon Calculation_p01(2).jpg The numerical value for m (the 4DMass of the fundamental dilator) that corresponds to the perfect Epsilon calculation is 1.004145 a.m.u. or an error of 0.36%. Since the formula uses inputs with significant uncertainty, 0.36% error is certainly more than expected. If you are a physicist, you might realize that there is no formula in any theory (physical or methaphysical) that calculates the value of epsilon. Of course, I also can calculate G (the Gravitational Constant) and derive Schrodinger Equation) for that matter. Needless to say, the Fundamental Dilator Paradigm is also the basis for the smooth transition between classical and quantum mechanics- the solution to the hidden variable problem that Albert Einstein failed to solve. There are many other fascinating results I published in the Quantization in Astrophysics book and some that will be published on the Hadron Physics book due in November. Others can be seen in my blog http://hypergeometricaluniverse.blogspot.com The latest version of the work is in this link http://www.geocities.com/ny2292000/1.pdf I am writing it because Geocities is having some glitches in the redirectioning of links. I created a site for discussion and invited scientists, bankers, bakers, PhD students or anyone else to criticize it (positive or negative criticism). I rarely receive any criticism and certainly I've never received any criticism which I couldn't solve, clarify or remediate. You are welcome to bring your questions, critique and that includes literary critique. Now, returning to the posting in question. I demonstrated that the theory has been published, people had the opportunity to criticize it and chose not to do so. In fact, I haven't the faintest idea if someone is referring to my work. I don't follow the literature due to lack of time. The reason why I tried to post it in Wikipedia is exactly because of this intellectual inertia or reactionary attitude (demonstrated clearly in the comments by your peers). It is difficult to accept that a new and great idea might come from someone you've never heard of...:) Not the usual suspects...:) but not to allow that idea to be disseminated or discussed would be a crime against Science. This is site where statements will be edited, discussed, and ideas will come to life. If my ideas is discredited it will a statement about it reflect that and that is alright...:) I believe this is the best place for the Fundamental Dilator Paradigm to be presented and I reiterate my request for a reevaluation in face of the new evidence. Thanks very much for your attention and effort. Yours truly, Marco Pereira —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ny2292000 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The Fundamental Dilator in the Hypergeometrical Universe Model – Closing this, deletion endorsed. The nominator conceded that this is "novel research." We don't publish novel research, ever, no matter how important; see two of our most important policies: Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not – Chick Bowen 01:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Below is the original discussion for the Hypergeometrical Universe Theory which has been published and peer reviewed. Please follow the links associated with the Quantization in Astrophysics book. The Hypergeometrical Standard Model will be published by the end of October in a Hadron Physics book. None of them were initiated by me. These are peer-reviewed books.

Mr. Bachmann set my new page into a speedy deletion process which let no space for reviewing prior comments directed at my theory. He did not make any substantiate comment. He stated that my work was a HOAX, which did not stand scrutiny.

Below are some of the comments which are obviously out of place since the theory has been peer review and published. Snide comments such as "Quaint or WP:BOLLOCKS" have no merit since the theory is peer reviewed and published and show lack of civility unworthy to Wikipedia.

They did not have any merit at the time of their issuance. Any disagreement with the content of the work should be directed to a journal or at least should be made clear to me.

There is no copywrights violation in this page since all work is mine.

By the way, there is and there was't any copywright violations. Five dimensional spacetimes are common (normally they have compact dimensions like Kaluza-Klein). There has not being published a single model in which the 3D Universe is a shock-wave traveling at the speed of light. That hypothesis together with the Fundamental Dilator model allow for the unification of Gravitation and Electromagnetism. Had the reviewer noticed that detail, he/she would not mention that my work has been done before. The other comments deserve no reply, but if you need answer to any of my prior reviewers please let me know.

The Fundamental Dilator is a departure from the concept of Particle. Electrons, Protons, Antiprotons and Positrons are all modeled as different phases of the same 4D deformationalcoherence. This means that in this theory, those four particles displace the same 4D volume as they travel along the radial direction, thus having the same 4DMass.

This theory is an extensive theory and thus can only be published in books due to its scope. It is difficult for me to cover all the details in this communication, but I will be more than willing to explain anything to anyone.

If you have any questions or issues with respect to the page, please let me know. I will be happy to clarify anything.

Thanks,

Marco Pereira

Wow, those links show that an article written by a Marco Pereira was published: proving only that an article was published. Unfortunately, I couldn't find "Hypergeometrical Universe Model" among the links. It's a bit hard to believe that the article in the PDF file was published though, as it's incredibly poorly written.

As for meriting an article on Wikipedia, Hypergeometrical Universe Model is like a single particle floating along the FS boundary. Jim62sch 23:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WOW. We have a literary critic among us.

The book was published and here is a pdf with all the book contents including my contribution.

Quantization in Astrophysics Book

If you have any content criticism, I will be happy to hear. If you want to rewrite my papers, you are welcome to do so.

The fact is that this is a creative theory that makes a Proton, Electron, AntiProton and Positron to be the same coherence between stationary states of a 4D space. This means that the concept of Particle has been replaced by this 4D deformational coherence traveling at the speed of light. Hence the model does not corresponds to a "Particle floating on FS".

Unlike other Kaluza-Klein like theories, this one proposes that the Universe is a 4D shockwave traveling at the speed of light. If this idea has been considered in the past, please let me know the reference. If you have any scientific objection to this hypothesis, please let me know.

Please show some self-respect and provide a meaningful criticism.

Thanks,

Marco Pereira

You misunderstand. Nobody doubts its existence, but existence is insufficient. Since the only contributor to the Wikipedia article appears to be the author of the subject article, this looks like original research or a novel synthesis. There is no evidence that this concept has received significant independent critical attention. This search [8] indicates not, as does [9] which indicates that the entire concept of the "hypergeometrical universe" is essentially yours, and maybe a very small group of others. See WP:FRINGE for guidelines on how we handle such things. Please also give citations for discussion of this subject in the major scientific journals. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion Until authors independent of the creator write about this theory it is unfit for inclusion in Wikipedia. This general theme of the initial discussion has not been addressed by the new version or this nomination. ~ trialsanderrors 16:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. "Hoax" may not be the most accurate word for a real, if idiosyncratic, view of metaphysics, but we really do need that independent critical attention. Being real isn't enough. --Dhartung | Talk 17:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion per comments of JzG as well as Dhartung's remark. JoshuaZ 23:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Fundamental Dilator in the Hypergeometrical Universe Model

It is nice that you people are having a little more appreciation towards my theory. I thought that Dieter calling it a HOAX or someone else calling it from Star Trek a little childish.

As I mentioned, I appreciate your efforts to keep crackpots from Wikipedia. I understand the risk, personal risk, you people face by being too much of an inclusionist.

On the other hand, I am sure you understand that managing risk is a matter of equilibrium - like walking a tight rope. Being tooooo safe and you will keep novel ideas out, you will prevent the dissemination of what might be a great idea.

Today's Science is very reactionary. My theory is currently 80 pages long and cannot be defended in chunks of 5 pages. It is a broad theory with the unification of Gravitation and Electromagnetism and a replacement for the Standard Model- a pilar of support of what that we hold near and dear.

I have to confess that the breadth and innovation that my theory brings is a hindrance to its dissemimation. People like to see a constant build towards something. I analysed all physics and restructured it. The theory starts at a Classical Relativistic level with the proposition of a new topology for the Universe (a ligthspeed outwards traveling shockwave 3D Universe embedded in a four dimensional Cartesian spatial manifold). It introduces absolute time and reference frames which are not observable within the 4D relativistic spacetime.

Einstein sought throughout his life the hidden variable that would make the transition between classical and quantum mechanics. With the introduction of the Fundamental Dilator paradigm, particles became shape shifting 4D displacement volumes -corresponding to the coherence betwee stationary 4D metric deformational states. Proton, antiproton, electron and positron are modeled as just phases of a 4D volume that spins while in contact with the 3D Fabric of Space. The displacent volume is modeled as a quantity proportional to our 3DMass. From that proportionality relationship, I was able to assign a 4D mass (4D displacement volume equivalent) for the fundamental dilator equal to the sum of one electron and one proton (1.00785 a.m.u.).

Using simple logic, I derived Newton's Gravitational Law, Gauss Electrostatics Law and the Biot-Savart Law. The non-methaphysical character of my theory becomes evident when I calculate from first principles two Cosmological Constants: vacuum permitivity and vacuum magnetic susceptibility.

The equations are shown below

Image:Epsilon Calculation_p01(2).jpg

The numerical value for m (the 4DMass of the fundamental dilator) that corresponds to the perfect Epsilon calculation is 1.004145 a.m.u. or an error of 0.36%. Since the formula uses inputs with significant uncertainty, 0.36% error is certainly more than expected.

If you are a physicist, you might realize that there is no formula in any theory (physical or methaphysical) that calculates the value of epsilon.

Of course, I also can calculate G (the Gravitational Constant) and derive Schrodinger Equation) for that matter.

Needless to say, the Fundamental Dilator Paradigm is also the basis for the smooth transition between classical and quantum mechanics- the solution to the hidden variable problem that Albert Einstein failed to solve.

There are many other fascinating results I published in the Quantization in Astrophysics book and some that will be published on the Hadron Physics book due in November. Others can be seen in my blog http://hypergeometricaluniverse.blogspot.com

The latest version of the work is in this link http://www.geocities.com/ny2292000/1.pdf I am writing it because Geocities is having some glitches in the redirectioning of links.

I created a site for discussion and invited scientists, bankers, bakers, PhD students or anyone else to criticize it (positive or negative criticism). I rarely receive any criticism and certainly I've never received any criticism which I couldn't solve, clarify or remediate. You are welcome to bring your questions, critique and that includes literary critique.

Now, returning to the posting in question. I demonstrated that the theory has been published, people had the opportunity to criticize it and chose not to do so. In fact, I haven't the faintest idea if someone is referring to my work. I don't follow the literature due to lack of time.

The reason why I tried to post it in Wikipedia is exactly because of this intellectual inertia or reactionary attitude (demonstrated clearly in the comments by your peers).

It is difficult to accept that a new and great idea might come from someone you've never heard of...:) Not the usual suspects...:) but not to allow that idea to be disseminated or discussed would be a crime against Science.

This is site where statements will be edited, discussed, and ideas will come to life. If my ideas is discredited it will a statement about it reflect that and that is alright...:)

I believe this is the best place for the Fundamental Dilator Paradigm to be presented and I reiterate my request for a reevaluation in face of the new evidence.

Thanks very much for your attention and effort.

Yours truly,

Marco Pereira —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ny2292000 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.