- 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. Sandstein 06:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dechronication (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced fringe-theory suggested by supposedly one individual. Could at best be merged into the article Robert Freitas. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a non-notable fringe theory. --Bfigura (talk) 05:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Objection How do you call 13 printed sources non-notable? They are in books, for goodness sakes! Did you see the link proving that? --70.179.170.40 (talk) 05:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Go to your local library and sifft through all the junk you can find in... books. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Or put another way, just because something is mentioned in a book (or books) doesn't make it notable. We would need sources discussing the subject in a substantial way, which I don't think those did. Which isn't surprising, given that this is all pure speculation. --Bfigura (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Objection How do you call 13 printed sources non-notable? They are in books, for goodness sakes! Did you see the link proving that? --70.179.170.40 (talk) 05:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable per WP:N. No independent reliable sources are provided in the article and a good faith Google search fails to uncover any. Appropriate content could be merged to Robert Freitas but "merge" is not an acceptable outcome of AfD discussions and policy doesn't support a Keep. Also, "13 Hits on Google Books" is not an appropriate form of citation, the link provided for that citation searches for "dechronification", which is not the title of the article, and 7 of the hits are dictionaries or quotation books. (I should note that if this is all a simple spelling error and the article was meant to be titled "dechronification" that would be a different discussion.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I also note the existence of Dechronication/Hypotheticals which I'm pretty sure isn't in accordance with policy on subpages. In the unlikely event of a Keep vote on the main article, the Hypotheticals subpage should be separately relisted. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, sorry, it already is. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, only six Google hits including Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 06:35, 17 November 2009 (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.