Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joint Directed Action

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. Cirt (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joint Directed Action

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

Article about a non-notable doctoral thesis, aparrently by the author of said thesis. There is no evidence this is anything other than original research. I42 (talk) 08:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to this page so I hope this is the right procedure. I wish to contest the deletion of Joint Directed Action as the purpose of this article is to describe the meaning of Joint Directed Action as well as its research origin. The definition of Joint Directed Action is published in a doctoral dissertation (with both an ISBN and ISSN number) and as this is peer-reviewed research and as such has passed a rigorous non-biased research review I cannot see how there exists a conflict of interest nor could be described to be original reserach without a foundation. The purpose of this article is to define the notion of Joint Directed Action. Chrmau (talk) 09:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry but Joint Directed Action is thus far supported by just one source and it's the original research in the dissertation. Being peer reviewed means the new theory has been accepted in that field of academia, but inclusion in Wikipedia is based on notability which is much different than peer review. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 11:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even though peer-reviewed, this is not notable. Wikipedia is not for things that you made up and that have "not yet become well known to the rest of the world." Reviewed or not, (1) you made this up, and (2) it is not well known to the world. --Glenfarclas (talk) 11:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm forced to agree, unfortunately. Somebody made up everything, so I discount that a bit - the concept has to begin somewhere, and an apparently well-researched and reviewed paper is a good start. Fair enough. But the critical issue here is that the concept is not (yet) notable, in that it has not been discussed by third parties unrelated to the subject. If other journals or publications take up the thread of this paper and discuss it, then it gains some notability. While I do not doubt the author's good faith or her abilities, the fact remains that this article is essentially "This is so, and I can prove it because I said so in this paper too", which doesn't meet our criteria for verifiability. As an aside, I'd be interested to read the paper, as it sounds fascinating - but an article here is probably a bit premature. Sorry. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:58, 16 December 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.