Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asymmetry Principle

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 delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asymmetry Principle

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged as primary-sourced ad-like for 7 years; talkpage has multiple editors questioning notability. The article doesn't actually assert any notability either. The topic-phrase has multiple meanings that are fairly different from this energy/economic sense, and I can't find substantial independent refs for the topic at hand, so "non-notable economic theory". Page was created by a briefly-active editor whose sole activity was creating a series of pages about the theory's author and his theories and publications. DMacks (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. CapitalSasha ~ talk 06:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – unhelpful to readers. Thincat (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In addition to the reasons given by the nom, this seems to be a trivial concept. The concept might be worthy of about two sentences somewhere, not a whole page of discussion. -- Gpc62 (talk) 05:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I went looking for secondary sources citing the single book reference in the article, and it's pretty sparse for citations, much less discussion of the principle. Seems pretty clearly non-notable. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2017 (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.