Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dechronication/Hypotheticals

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 was delete. There's one criteria to delete this, SNOW. In this case, a reasonable move. Tone 17:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dechronication/Hypotheticals

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTGUIDE Airplaneman ^talk 03:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia really isn't the place to list the potential ramifications of non-existent technology. (As the article doesn't make clear, this page is devoted to listing the potential benefits/drawbacks of a technology that could magically make everyone whatever age they desired to be). Aside from the arguments that Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball or a place to host an unsourced essay, nothing here is remotely verifiable. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 03:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also delete: :Dechronication (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as a non-notable non-existent technology. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Objection, your honor. There are 13 printed sources over this subject. For a subject to be gone over in 13 sources ought to make some kind of statement. Moreover, to call for deleting its host-page, you would have to make a separate AFD for that host-page. --70.179.170.40 (talk) 05:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

really? I just found 649 printed sources about slipping on a banana. Oh and, the separate AfD has been launched. See box above. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Was at once copied off of http://www.ibpassociation.org/encyclopedia/medicine/Dechronification.php. Btilm 03:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that link does not work for me. They're a respectable organization, and I can not imagine them hosting nonsense like this. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- What the...? This is why we need a speedy deletion criterion such as "WP:CSD#41- You've got to be kidding!" to cover articles like this one. Reyk _YO! 03:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do have a close speedy criterion, and it's G1, nonsense. But it is better that this be seen by the community, for it could conceivably be about some notable fiction, though I personally doubt it. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fundamentally unverifiable original research and speculation. Also, I wasn't aware that articles forked off other articles like this (ie Article/Subarticle) were allowable - am I wrong? - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- you're absolutely right. we're dealing with a single IP contesting both speedy and prod *sigh* Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy I am perfectly willing to let someone have such stuff in userspace. Collect (talk) 12:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting essay, looks like a good outline on which to base a science fiction novel, but not a Wikipedia article. Mandsford (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.