Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lovondatr

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 of the debate was delete. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lovondatr

Non-notable pseudoscience experiment, so far it's got only a couple of mentions like this [1] –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 02:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I have travelled forward in time using this vehicle and can tell you that it's non-notable 5000 years from now. Sdedeo 02:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Insane, hoax. --Apyule 03:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Article may need expansion but it reports on extremely important device with promise to improve human life immeasurably. Moreover, results were achieved! Experiments that have achieved results are ipso facto notable. Votes to delete are narrow-minded and POV. -EDM 03:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Google gives only 29 hits, I can't verify any of this information and it's not sourced. ESkog 04:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, not verifiable, no useful details. ManoaChild 04:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Purificare and conservare_(?); there is plenty of information for even a stub, and it seems to have worked. --Merovingian (t) (c) 06:15, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

What information? I can't find any mention of this that hasn't come from that article (at least in English). Claims like that need some pretty outstanding proof. Do you have any references?--Apyule 06:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Proto t c 11:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Experiments with Edit Page achieved results with VfD, still not noteable. Delete. Lomn 13:34:01, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
• It's interesting that a successful time-travel experiment, which isn't too secretive to be on Wikipedia, doesn't have more than 16 google hits, with many unapplicable, and hasn't been covered by any major new agency. Something smells very wrong, and when things smell very wrong you delete as unverifiable. --Scimitar ^parley 14:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment actually there is a bigger problem with Kosmopoisk and Vadim Chernobrov articles, there are 5330 google hits for Kosmopisk and one of Chernobrov hits is [2]. I guess they are next in queue for nomination, but 5400 hits may hit the notability for pseudoscience or at least notable self-promotion threshold. –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 14:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Huh? Delete. Not even an article. -R. fiend 15:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• I second that huh. Someone achieves time travel and it is ignored by the news media? Smells like a hoax to me. And I don't think I'm narrow-minded for saying Delete. If true, this would be the biggest news in the field of physics EVER. I don't believe in time travel, but hey, I'd love to be proved wrong. --Etacar11 16:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Guess why there's no coverage in the news media and very few Google hits? A simple hop into the Lovondatron, quick trip to February 2014, and wipe 'em out! Results achieved, I tell ya. -EDM 16:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Plus, who knew you could time-travel in a yurt? -EDM 17:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand to elucidate and record the hoax / conspiracy theory. Eldereft 23:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• I can fulfill this suggestion for the rest of Kosmoposk articles. This device may be as arguable as E-Meter which has an article, but scientologists are much more popular, it would be bothersome to repeat hoax theory on so many articles. But its true that the most fraud accusations againt Chernobrov mention Lovondatr. I've been pointed to Harley "SwiftDeer" Reagan with similar problems, but I see that the "Quodoushka sex therapy" has got no article of its own–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 23:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, article does not establish notability. Martg76 21:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete patent nonsense.  Grue  05:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

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.