Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Division 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. JForget 01:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Division Theory

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

Original research. DimaG (talk) 01:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 08:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independent, objective, reliable sources are found to establish notability. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain why the sources are unreliable? Silver seren^C 18:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a "theory", it's clearly a fringe theory, and one that hasn't been referenced extensively and in a serious manner in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. And no, the "Tranceformers" book dealing with "communication with the dead", nor the Pyramid Bookstore title promising to reveal "what really happens to the soul after death" qualify as serious, independent coverage of a theory. However I suspect this "division" is not actually a "theory", but a mystical belief, and if it can satisfy WP:N as a belief, should be be redirected to an appropriate article such as New age, Afterlife or Soul dualism. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue and added in some links. Though, "original research" isn't necessarily a reason for nomination at AfD. Silver seren^C 08:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable and appears to be just spamming by fringe author. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no indication that independent sources have ever identified this idea as notable. Much of the rest of the article is original research as the OP states. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are plenty of people making up "theories" everyday; we only need articles on those that are notable. There are no reliable sources for this topic, only fringe, and it is not sufficiently notable to warrant an article. Johnuniq (talk) 08:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is heavily masked in searching by a band and a variety of mathematical terms. but even so it only seems to show up in the fringey press as a slight trace. The sources are for the most part books and conference presentations by the author of the theory, from what I can see. Mangoe (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem notable to me. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2010 (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.