Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interreality
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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, single purpose account discounted. Sandstein 06:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interreality[edit]
This article appears to be original research. The user name leads me to believe that the author is the same person as the originator of the theory, as stated in the article ("defined by Dr. Jacob van Kokswijk"). LittleOldMe 16:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research. Even the one website cited (that of Dr. Kokswijk) presents no references to independent academic journals or other independent sources. --DachannienTalkContrib 16:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the article is an unsourced piece of original research. Even if verified, it's also a neologism. Doc Tropics 17:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research; if it gets covered in the media, peer-reviewed, etc., then consider an article. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete OR, not an article. Danny Lilithborne 22:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for many of the same reasons as above. Blatant original research. — Chris53516 (Talk) 14:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Several refs have recently been added to the article. Review indicates very few scholarly sources, one or more of which included (this article's) author's contributions. The balance are somewhat borderline in terms of applicability and verifiability. It seems that the author is a dedicated new contributor, anxious to add content to WP. I would suggest working on other articles for a while...this still seems to be a neologism, and an element of original research remains. Doc Tropics 16:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Where are you talking about? i don't see such as original research — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.67.146.183 (talk • contribs)
- Delete Original research or not, it doesn't look encyclopedic at all. Perhaps it could be saved, but at this point I don't see much reason for it to exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gelston (talk • contribs)
- Keep I don't understand your objections above. It looks very encyclopedic to me. With details in depth and sources. --00hara 12:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I recommend that the above request to keep the article be discounted because it is the user's one-and-only contribution to Wikipedia. LittleOldMe 14:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Sorry User:LittleOldMe: Is a WP user only a serious user when he/she has an ancien WP record? Or don't you have arguments against my amazement? I still don't understand nor get clear why this word, used since the 60ties, in many different context, also in peer reviewed science, even in a popular television programm, should be neologism or original research... What I read in this article is an impressive and interesting encyclopedic (hi)story from cartoon phantasy to criminal behavior, with links to a lot of excisting WP data and other sources. What do you know that I don't know? Please convince me or remove your comment! --00hara 21:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have nothing against newcomers, in fact, a review of my postings will show that I have welcomed, assisted, and defended newcomers. However, I made the recommendation to discount your argument because I suspect that you are engaging in sock puppetry because your entire focus is on the this one article. Your posts show all the characteristics of a sock puppet, as such I have created a suspected sock puppet entry. LittleOldMe 10:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but it seems to me that you sink your teeth into a virtual suspect, or play the wise shot, in stead of looking objective to the text. BTW, I don't like to discuss your defective suspicions, because you ruin more than you welcome. Discussion closed. --00hara 14:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepNeeds wikifying, that's all. the editor should be congratulated on getting this article together at all. And agree with 00Hara--we encourage newbies, and if they dont get it right at first, we teach them. This is very different from the more usual 1st edit to pt in some spam.DGG 23:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We do encourage newbies - we also abide by policies, such as NOR. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikifying won't make it any less OR. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:18, 5 December 2006 (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.