Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JM Rights Index

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. Per the discussion, the theories are not sufficiently notable for an article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JM Rights Index

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

Two non-notable theories created by a non-notable scholar (see Google, for instance). Only source appears to be Meng's book itself, which according to the articles' creator was just published this month. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The book is actually a doctoral thesis, and it's not clear that it has been published except through Google Books. I would not imagine that most rating scales are notable. EALacey (talk) 07:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly keep. The work does get some positive comments on this blog. The blog seems to be by an emeritus professor, so I guess that is quite important. If we do keep something, I would suggest it is an article on the work as a whole. i.e. Both of the indices and the thesis which used the indices. Having two separate articles, one on each index, seems pointless. I would suggest naming the article after the thesis. However, "Origins of attitudes to animals" sounds like a general article title, rather than a piece about a specific work. Perhaps the article should be called "JM animal attitude indices". Yaris678 (talk) 08:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Could find no coverage in Google News. Google Scholar only showed the author of the thesis the Index is based on. Regarding a Google search, the following results [1] show either Wikipedia – Wikipedia mirror sites or self-interest web/blog sites for the author. Without any additional coverage from independent sources it does not meet any of our notability guidelines for inclusion. JAAG^Talk 00:51, 2 January 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.