Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Programmer's Truth Theory

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. Peacent 03:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Programmer's Truth Theory

CSD template repeatedly removed by page creator and IP address; creator admits article is original research and unsourceable DOONHAMER | BANTER 16:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page creator removed an original db-nonsense template. I don't think the article was nonsense, but it was pretty clearly original research and not verifiable; the creator admitted as much on the talk page. I added the NOR and Unreferenced templates to provide more context, but they were later removed by an IP address. I would have just listed this in the request for comments page, but with the history of removed CSD tags and the very small possibility of ever being able to verify the article's content, I thought I'd bring it here for discussion. DOONHAMER | BANTER 16:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Original research, as admitted to by original editor. No independent sources, so it is not verifiable. In absence for a scholarly claim about the theory, it is not notable. (The article is cohesive enough that it's not patent nonsense, so I don't see a criterion under which it can be speedily deleted.) —C.Fred (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20-Mule-Team Delete: There's not a single Google hit for this soi-disant unsourced, OR-by-definition theory, not even from this article, which is truly impressive. Toss in WP:COI, since the article's creator and editor is User talk:Brichard12, and there you have it. RGTraynor 17:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, the complete lack of GHits says it all. Definitely neologism, perhaps made up one day. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided support for my theory in a referenced publication within the article. Brichard12 17:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Errr ... in a paper some folks presented at a symposium? Do you have any publication history, by name, in a major peer-reviewed journal? RGTraynor 17:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Papers presented at major conferences are generally considered reliable sources. They are typically published by the conference organiser (in this case the IEEE), and I believe most such conferences require peer review before allowing a paper to be presented. However all this source does is suggest that the research in question in this article is even less notable, because all it is doing is reiterating something already known: that incorrect assumptions lead to errors. We now have a source that shows that this has been known and commented on since 2004 at the latest, and given that it isn't presented in the paper as a new concept one can assume earlier. JulesH 19:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not that we doubt the theory's true. It's that we need to see publications about the theory (not publications that support it). And I doubt we'll ever see those, regardless of its truth: the theory's so self evident, I find it hard to see how it could even be considered a theory. JulesH 19:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in agreement with discussion on page. Unsourced. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not mentioned in supplied source at all. Nothing to indicate this theory is notable (presentation at a conference is not notability). --Dhartung | Talk 22:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but a good idea to bring it here--simpler & more definitive than a RfC. Most conference papers are not significant, but IEEE is somewhat of an exception. Still, even if it had really been one the subject, one conference pape even at the best conferences would almost never be enough.DGG (talk) 04:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In academic computer science publication, selective conferences can be more significant than journals. But one paper with a modest number of citations is still only a weak indicator of notability. And more to the point, I don't see a lot of support for the article within the cited paper. —David Eppstein 16:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The paper I cited in the reference connotes the justification for the theory through the studies that were conducted of end-user programmers. While the theory is not literally referenced from within the article I cited, it explains the ideas endemic to the theory; thus the theory evolved from out of my interpretation of the article's evidentiary studies. I think that it is absurd to suggest that I must write a treatise or a national publication of some sort describing a theory I developed just to get a blurb entry of it on Wikipedia. If that is what it takes to promote ideas to the masses on Wikipedia, then we should all be relegated to reading the hard-copy edition of the written word and disabuse ourselves of the collaborative ideas and thoughts that are electronically manifested through an international, interactive human encyclopedia called the internet... Brichard12 00:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend reading WP:NOT, for openers. In point of fact, Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, and it is a grave misconception (and common among outsiders) to think our primary function is to promote new ideas to the masses. Instead, it is an encyclopedia that reflects other primary sources, and as such strictly bans original research. When your theory has been published in verifiable, reliable, third-party sources, then our policies and guidelines will support an article on it. RGTraynor 02:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If my theory ever gets published by a "verifiable, reliable, third-party source" I won't bother wasting my time placing it on Wikipedia. I am requesting that this entire entry be permanently removed from the Wikipedia site as soon as possible. Brichard12 03:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're well on our way to granting you your wish. RGTraynor 13:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - self-admitted original research -- Whpq 21:38, 17 July 2007 (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.