- 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 G7 after author blanked and tagged the article. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Think-tion (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 theory by non-notable author. Self published. Only real reference is to a "similar" theory by someone actually notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — —Darkwind (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I think therefore I should have a Wikipedia page. No indication that this approach has any substantial followers or has been paid any attention anywhere. Bella the Ball (talk) 05:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of notability. (Also, this gives philosophy a bad name: it isn't philosophy, it's cod psychology.) —Tom Morris (talk) 07:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There is no indication of notability as well as a lack of outside sources. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 07:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Absolutely no reason for this article to remain on wikipedia. If the author and his theory become more well known and notable in the future then it should be added but at this moment in time there's no reason for it to be here. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Delete sounds like something Dilbert's pointy-haired boss would come up with. In fact parts of it really come off as some sort of parody of pseudo-business gobbledygook: "The elements of Think-tion are similar to Six Thinking Hats, Six Action Shoes, and Six Value Medals." I swear that's actually in the article and I did not make it up. We're not deleting it for being stupid, though, we're deleting it for being non-notable and poorly sourced. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:27, 25 August 2011 (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.