Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electronic voice phenomenon

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 speedy keep (non-admin closure), WP:POINT nomination. Yuser31415 00:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic voice phenomenon

Reason Tom Butler 00:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC) I have submitted EVP for deletion. I will follow with ITC.[reply]

The reason for this request for deletion is that:

1) Wikipedia rules restrict content of the EVP entry: Wikipedia:No original research. Virtually all of the work done to study EVP and related phenomena has been classified by editors as original research, and therefore, the subject cannot be factually represented in Wikipedia.

2) A survey of the people studying EVP, and therefore the people who are sufficiently knowledgable to provide factual content , will show that virtually all of them have a conflict of interested as described by Wikipedia editors: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

3) It has been demonstrated on numerous occasions that many of the editors contributing to the EVP entry do not have the background in the subject to distinguish valid information from out-dated or simply erronious information. Exclusion of EVP subject matter experts assures this to be a continuing problem.

4) There has been a continuing conflect between people who want demonstrated fact to be presented and people who discount those facts as not demonstrated by mainstream science. Even when agreement between the two vieupoints has been reached, it is sometimes only a few hours before new conservative editors begin pushing the point of view to make EVP sound like we are delusional. When I firs tcame to it last Novemeber, the AA-EVP, and therefore EVP was being discounted because I am a Spiritualsit.

5) With this new wave of editors came new determination to keep people who want EVP to be factually represented from participating in consensus building. One of the arguments for why I could not edit the entry was that there are references to the AA-EVP, making it a conflict of interest. My solution was to remove those references, but in response, I was blocked from editing for "editing wars." At the same time, one of the new editors was in an edit war over tages, but nothing was done to correct this.

Based on Wikipedia rules and the evidence of the EVP talk pages, it is clear that EVP should not be in the encyclopedia because it is not possible to arrive at and maintain a consensus. Determination to have the EVP entry has already produced negative publicity for Wikipedia, which will only eculate while EVP remains a public contest between skeptic and "proponents." Tom Butler 00:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. WP:POINT nomination. See WP:ANI/#Electronic_voice_phenomenon. The user seems frustrated at not getting his way with the article. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:POINT nomination from WP:AN/I RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a real, verifiable topic, regardless of whether it can be proven "for real". IPSOS (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2007 (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.