Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liquid Organization
"Liquid Organization" returns but 40 Google hits, and that includes things like "we are an evolving and liquid organization". Zero hits if I include "Christian Jacken". In fact, the first couple of pages (I didn't look at all of them) for just "Christian Jacken" return only his additions to mailing lists and message boards. RickK 05:44, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
- But this is not a reason to delete the entire article. Instead you could add to the article that you doubt that I have added this meaning to the term. Did you even visit the article on "Liquid Democracy"? ChristianJacken 05:56, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Delete personal essay. May also need to start a vfd for Liquid Democracy, which seems to have no existence outside of wikis and blogs. -Sean Curtin 08:18, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Oooh. Autobiography! DELETED (anyone else always think of strongbad when they work on VFD?)--Samuel J. Howard 13:25, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
- BALEETED. Timbo 03:04, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: A "coinage" by the author, transient, original research. Geogre 13:30, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Neologism, non-notable, original research. — Gwalla | Talk 21:26, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- YES!!! LET'S DELETE ALL NEOLOGISMS!!! :-) Why don't you (Gtrmp) also suggest to substitute other Wikipedia articles for the text of old, no longer copyrighted encyclopedias? In some years, when first congressman will possibly be choosen through liquid democracy, people will laugh at you because you suggested to delete the "Liquid Democracy" article. You should go to some meeting/workshop where Liquid Democracy and its new brother "Liquid Organizations" will be debated, the next one is in London at the ESF (www.fse-esf.org). If you are reading this and it makes sense to you and you want Wikipedia to continue being a progressive encyclopedia, please vote against deletion. I have taken my name off the article since some people seemed to have a problem with that. ChristianJacken 02:53, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a forum -- neither a message board nor an advocacy forum. It is not an encyclopedia of the future, and its policies state that it cannot contain original research. Neither does it allow autobiography. This article and its twin violate these policies. When that legislator is elected by liquid democracy and it's called by that name, we will need an article on the subject. There are many other places to advocate. Encyclopedias are not appropriate for that purpose. Geogre 03:58, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- YES!!! LET'S DELETE ALL NEOLOGISMS!!! :-) Why don't you (Gtrmp) also suggest to substitute other Wikipedia articles for the text of old, no longer copyrighted encyclopedias? In some years, when first congressman will possibly be choosen through liquid democracy, people will laugh at you because you suggested to delete the "Liquid Democracy" article. You should go to some meeting/workshop where Liquid Democracy and its new brother "Liquid Organizations" will be debated, the next one is in London at the ESF (www.fse-esf.org). If you are reading this and it makes sense to you and you want Wikipedia to continue being a progressive encyclopedia, please vote against deletion. I have taken my name off the article since some people seemed to have a problem with that. ChristianJacken 02:53, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, agree with Geogre. Average Earthman 14:16, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Delete both Liquid Organization and Liquid Democracy. I just put a vfd header on the latter. Also we'll need to clean up promo links for Liquid Democracy which have been placed in several articles. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:21, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Delete both personal essays. --Michael Snow 18:50, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Geogre: You're right, Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia of the future, but of the present. And "Liquid Democracy" is already a reality. Several organizations are already making use of it to a greater or lesser extend. According to your logic, if something new is invented and registered e.g. with the U.S. Patents Office, it cannot make it into Wikipedia. When the first products based on that invention have been shipped, the invention still can't make it into Wikipedia. According to your logic, only when a huge number of persons worldwide know about it, it can make into Wikipedia. This logic is sick, it is against innovation and it ignores that we live in a society which generates more and more specific knowledge. How much do you know about political sciences? While there is no obligation for anyone to be a specialist or hobby-specialist in any area, it is a matter of respecting other specialists' work, the same way you don't want specialists of other areas to say what is right or what is wrong in the area of your expertise. Who ever agrees on this, and who ever is against CENSORSHIP of scientific development, vote for maintaining the "Liquid Organization" article or AT LEAST the "Liquid Democracy" article! 217.231.24.174 23:44, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- In the words of H. L. Mencken: "Dear Sir/Madam. You may be right." No change of vote. Geogre 02:59, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- There are all kinds of things registered with the patent office that are patent nonsense. That doesn't mean we have to have articles about them, any more than anybody is required to create one. RickK 06:05, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
- RickK: We're not talking about that anybody is required to create certain articles. We're talking about deleting an existing article. Does the fact that patent nonsense exist imply that most or all new patents are nonsense, or that every or most new articles on Wikipedia are nonsense? 217.231.26.157 16:24, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Geogre: You're right, Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia of the future, but of the present. And "Liquid Democracy" is already a reality. Several organizations are already making use of it to a greater or lesser extend. According to your logic, if something new is invented and registered e.g. with the U.S. Patents Office, it cannot make it into Wikipedia. When the first products based on that invention have been shipped, the invention still can't make it into Wikipedia. According to your logic, only when a huge number of persons worldwide know about it, it can make into Wikipedia. This logic is sick, it is against innovation and it ignores that we live in a society which generates more and more specific knowledge. How much do you know about political sciences? While there is no obligation for anyone to be a specialist or hobby-specialist in any area, it is a matter of respecting other specialists' work, the same way you don't want specialists of other areas to say what is right or what is wrong in the area of your expertise. Who ever agrees on this, and who ever is against CENSORSHIP of scientific development, vote for maintaining the "Liquid Organization" article or AT LEAST the "Liquid Democracy" article! 217.231.24.174 23:44, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- It's ridiculous of you to assume or claim that every or most new articles on Wikipedia are nonsense. We're only discussing this article, which is obvious nonsense. It never ceases to amaze me that people think that by attacking other people, it helps their cause. RickK 19:34, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
- RickK: Please read the sentence you are criticizing again, nobody said that most new articles on Wikipedia are nonsense (instead it was a rhetorical question to show that you made a weak statement before, see the question mark at the end).217.231.18.120 02:16, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is *not* required to be "innovative" or "progressive" (at least, not in the sense that is applied here). It *is* required to be accurate and non-promotional. Wikipedia contributors may know more about political sciences than Mr. Jacksen thinks: enough to know that this article is a waste of time and not in any sense a useful contribution to the encyclopedia. Delete. Lacrimosus 21:40, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Delete Liquid Organization as neologism. No original research. Rossami 23:35, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)