Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexual transmutation
unsourced original research. Was prodded as such, but tag was removed. -999 (Talk) 15:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per my nom. -999 (Talk) 15:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree with the OR. Probably wouldn't be a bad idea to look into other articles tied into this Samael Aun Weor figure. It looks a bit like propaganda OR. 205.157.110.11 15:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.
999, you need only vote once.SynergeticMaggot 16:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC) - Keep. Sounds kooky to me, but external links are provided and google yields plenty of sites discussing this (many, but not all in the context of this Samael Aun Weor character). Scorpiondollprincess 19:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Ekajati 21:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for now. I am concerned that this process is bypassing some Wikipedia norms; so far this article smells like a drive-by deletion:
- The author, Paul Stone has never been notified of the AfD -- that's supposed to be part of the process.
- There has been no prior discussion of any article flaws on the talk page.
- 999 identified possible copyright issues in a previous edit -- is that still a concern? If so, what are the specifics?
- 999 has also just nominated another article associated with Paul Stone, Gnostic Movement, for deletion, again without any involvement in editing the article or commenting on the talk page. Coincidence? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gnostic Movement
- Alternatives to deletion recommended in "Before nominating an AfD" have not been followed -- no attempts made by 999 to improve the article first. For starters, 999 could put {{fact}} tags on the statements not supported by the external links.--A. B. 04:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm going to nitpick here....Notifying a page's creator that the article is nom for AfD is not necessarily "part of the process," although it's considered a good thing to do. Also, the "Before nominating an AfD" section generally has suggestions, not guidelines that must be followed (most start out like "Consider adding," "Consider making," etc). I can say that I don't always do any of these things when nominating. And in fact, oftentimes if an article seems like an obvious candidate for AfD, I'll track down the author's other contributions to see if other pages are also obvious candidates (this isn't uncommon for vanity pages, for example). My point being that User:999 wasn't necessarily acting in bad faith in nominating this, and it's not fair to him/her to assume that s/he was (WP:AGF). -- H·G (words/works) 06:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)