Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forbidden knowledge

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Relisting since the article was completely rewritten by User:Roeschter after all the below votes were cast —Stormie 06:54, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

This is more of a personal essay; even if this is an encyclopedia topic, which I don't think it is, this isn't the article for it. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:47, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)

  • Delete: "Secrecy" and "Classified information" might be topics, but "forbidden knowledge" is a duplicate. Also, this is really just an expanded dictdef. Geogre 18:59, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry to say that I still cannot change my vote. It's not because the rewrite lacks value, but because I still think this is a duplication. I might move to abstain, after I look around to see if I can name some specific lemmae that duplicate this material. Geogre 13:25, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete strange essay. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:26, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Retain: The essay is balanced, neutral and useful. It is not personal. If it is short it should be expanded. The topic is useful. Me thinks the votes for deletion don't want this topic exposed. Moshiah
    Fake sockpuppet. User:Moshiah is not even registered. -- Cyrius|✎ 16:43, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, sure. True knowledge of the user is forbidden. This is all a conspiracy to keep forbidden knowledge forbidden. Geogre 19:07, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • So perhaps VfD should be on the list of methods used to keep "forbidden knowledge" forbidden? I think perhaps the people who forbade some such knowledge actually had a good reason. Please see my vote below, if it isn't forbidden.Fire Star 01:41, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: I don't even know if "Forbidden Knowledge" is the best way to name this abstract concept. I think the concept is worthy of an entry, but it should use a standard term and better explain it. Tslag 19:19, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • I forbid you to keep this article in its present form! Delete. Fire Star 01:41, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I completely replaced the original text with an expanded form (wasn't my origical article). Forbidden knowledge is indeed very diffrent from secret knowledge. While there is any number of good reasons to keep certain things secret, very specific political and sociological mechanisms are at work for forbidden knowledge. User:roeschter 00:00, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please place new votes below here

  • Keep: rewrite needs grammatical fixes and better wikification, but not deletion. -Sean Curtin 08:09, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I like the new edit. Keep. Rhymeless 16:54, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Alright. I have done some copy editing, and it needs more to be sure, but I can see there is enough potential to keep it around for now, at least. Fire Star 03:41, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Could be better written, maybe could be better named, but as it is at least a weak keep.
  • Despite the history and the editor, the article looks valid. Test is, can content be merged and article redirected? If not, weak keep Cutler 13:52, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Pjacobi 14:17, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redundant - Centrx 17:06, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Forbidden_knowledge&oldid=357517998"