Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Programmer's Truth Theory

Programmer's Truth Theory

CSD template repeatedly removed by page creator and IP address; creator admits article is original research and unsourceable DOONHAMER | BANTER 16:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page creator removed an original db-nonsense template. I don't think the article was nonsense, but it was pretty clearly original research and 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. DOONHAMER | BANTER 16:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.) —C.Fred (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. RGTraynor 17:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, the complete lack of GHits says it all. Definitely neologism, perhaps made up one day. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided support for my theory in a referenced publication within the article. Brichard12 17:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Errr ... in a paper some folks presented at a symposium? Do you have any publication history, by name, in a major peer-reviewed journal? RGTraynor 17:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Papers presented at major conferences are generally considered reliable sources. They are typically published by the conference organiser (in this case the IEEE), and I believe most such conferences require peer review before allowing a paper to be presented. However all this source does is suggest that the research in question in this article is even less notable, because all it is doing is reiterating something already known: that incorrect assumptions lead to errors. We now have a source that shows that this has been known and commented on since 2004 at the latest, and given that it isn't presented in the paper as a new concept one can assume earlier. JulesH 19:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not that we doubt the theory's true. It's that we need to see publications about the theory (not publications that support it). And I doubt we'll ever see those, regardless of its truth: the theory's so self evident, I find it hard to see how it could even be considered a theory. JulesH 19:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]