Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Programmer's Truth Theory: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Brichard12 (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--Template:Afd top
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
The result was '''delete'''. [[User talk:PeaceNT|'''Peacent''']] 03:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
===[[Programmer's Truth Theory]]===
{{ns:0|T}}
<div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Programmer's Truth Theory}}</ul></div>
:{{la|Programmer's Truth Theory}} – <includeonly>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Programmer's Truth Theory|View AfD]])</includeonly><noinclude>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 13#{{anchorencode:Programmer's Truth Theory}}|View log]])</noinclude>
CSD template repeatedly removed by page creator and IP address; creator admits article is original research and unsourceable <span style="background:Black;border:1px solid Orange;padding:1px;"> [[User:Doonhamer|<b><
:The page creator removed an original db-nonsense template. I don't think the article was nonsense, but it was pretty clearly [[WP:NOR|original research]] and [[WP:V|not verifiable]]; the creator admitted as much on the talk page. I added the NOR and Unreferenced templates to provide more context, but they were later removed by an IP address. I would have just listed this in the request for comments page, but with the history of removed CSD tags and the very small possibility of ever being able to verify the article's content, I thought I'd bring it here for discussion. <span style="background:Black;border:1px solid Orange;padding:1px;"> [[User:Doonhamer|<b><
*'''Strong delete'''. Original research, as admitted to by original editor. No independent sources, so it is not verifiable. In absence for a scholarly claim about the theory, it is not notable. (The article is cohesive enough that it's not patent nonsense, so I don't see a criterion under which it can be speedily deleted.) —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 16:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''20-Mule-Team Delete:''' There's not a ''single'' Google hit for this soi-disant unsourced, OR-by-definition theory, not even from this article, which is truly impressive. Toss in [[WP:COI]], since the article's creator and editor is [[User talk:Brichard12]], and there you have it. [[User:RGTraynor|'''<span style="background:Blue;color:Cyan"> RGTraynor </span>''']] 17:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Line 20 ⟶ 28:
The paper I cited in the reference connotes the justification for the theory through the studies that were conducted of end-user programmers. While the theory is not literally referenced from within the article I cited, it explains the ideas endemic to the theory; thus the theory evolved from out of my interpretation of the article's evidentiary studies.
I think that it is absurd to suggest that I must write a treatise or a national publication of some sort describing a theory I developed just to get a blurb entry of it on Wikipedia. If that is what it takes to promote ideas to the masses on Wikipedia, then we should all be relegated to reading the hard-copy edition of the written word and disabuse ourselves of the collaborative ideas and thoughts that are electronically manifested through an international, interactive human encyclopedia called the internet... [[User:Brichard12|Brichard12]] 00:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
: I'd recommend reading [[WP:NOT]], for openers. In point of fact, Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, and it is a grave misconception (and common among outsiders) to think our primary function is to promote new ideas to the masses. Instead, it is an encyclopedia that reflects other primary sources, and as such strictly bans [[WP:OR|original research]]. When your theory has been published in [[WP:V|verifiable, reliable, third-party sources]], then our policies and guidelines will support an article on it. [[User:RGTraynor|'''<span style="background:Blue;color:Cyan"> RGTraynor </span>''']] 02:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
If my theory ever gets published by a "verifiable, reliable, third-party source" I won't bother wasting my time placing it on Wikipedia. I am requesting that this entire entry be permanently removed from the Wikipedia site as soon as possible. [[User:Brichard12|Brichard12]] 03:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
: We're well on our way to granting you your wish. [[User:RGTraynor|'''<span style="background:Blue;color:Cyan"> RGTraynor </span>''']] 13:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - self-admitted original research -- [[User:Whpq|Whpq]] 21:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
| |||