Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Total Existence 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. postdlf (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Total Existence Theory

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

Contested prod. This is an essay full of original research on a non-notable fringe theory. Author has made an effort at sourcing, via copious external links, but in a WP:SYNTH kind of way. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The theory is non-notable, and seemingly made up one day by the author of this article. There are no references because no reliable sources even mention this topic, let alone devote significant coverage to it. The article is chock full of off-topic external links. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is complete bollocks from start to finish.—S Marshall T/C 12:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The total existence theory was first published in December 2010 by WestBow Press. This theory was not just made up. Through research has been done to prevent copyright. WestBow press is not in the business of publishing complete bollocks, since it is against their editorial standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KentuckyFamily (talk • contribs) 14:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The Big Bang does not answer the question, what would drive nothing to create something? Created out of emptiness, nothing should only desire to produce more of nothing. An unknown cause does not justify or prove an answer to the question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KentuckyFamily (talk • contribs) 16:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck your second !vote, because I'm afraid you only get one per discussion. David Steinecker, I presume?—S Marshall T/C 19:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not for things made up one day/not a publisher of original thought, etc. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only hit on Google Scholar is to a book associated with kentuckyfamily.com. When it gets published in a peer-reviewed academic journal, maybe then we'll have something to talk about. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2015 (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.