Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fractal causation

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 Speedy deleted per CSD G7 as the author and provider of the only substantial content blanked the article, assumed to be a request for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fractal causation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable neologism, zero hits in Google scholar. Appears to be an attempt at self-promotion by a student. References that I can see do not use this term or mention the person credited as originating it (not counting the one primary source, which is an unpublished student paper). At least one ref is too old to even have mentioned fractals. Not notable or verifiable. Hairhorn (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Vanity self-promotion. (Forgive my meanness here, but really an Oxford grad student should know better.) Oh yeah: don't forget to spike Fractal causality. EEng (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2010 (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.