- 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) 01:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kincaid complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Declined speedy nomination. Original nominator stated "blatant hoax/vandalism". SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Original nominator here. I can't find any ghits indicating that a "Kincaid complex" (or Kincaidian Complex) exists. Certainly not what the original editor claims. This may just be WP:MADEUP, of course. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This presents a possible BLP issue, since the alleged complex is (without explanation or sources) named for author James Kincaid, who would doubtfully endorse the term himself. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 09:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If Kincaid didn't originate this concept, it's original research. If he did, WP:FRINGE applies because the theory has no reliable source coverage outside his book. Baileypalblue (talk) 09:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The author did originate the concept. Here is the book which has a central theme expressing the idea:[1]
Here is a short summation of the central idea expressed in the book in a statement made by the author:[2]
The idea does have reliable source coverage outside the book: (I am getting these links now.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindwalkernine (talk • contribs) 15:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — Mindwalkernine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment: It has been three days since this user, the page creator, offered to add independent reliable sources verifying the notability of the theory. The user has made no such additions either here or in the article; barring further change, I think this can be viewed as confirmation of the theory's FRINGE status. Baileypalblue (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 1 February 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.