Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vector theory of law
- 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. Majorly (o rly?) 19:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vector theory of law[edit]
- Vector theory of law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
The article makes it clear that this is original research. andy 09:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's probably not OR, since it seems to be published in a peer-reviewed journal or by some university press publishing house, because the link in the reference section goes to a Brazilian university page. I have asked the author on the talk page of the article to clarify whether this theory was published in a peer-reviewed journal or not.--DorisHノート 21:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Benedant 23:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Yes, this monograph was published officially in the mentioned University, as an end course requirement. It's there, printed and was analised by the profssors of the university and accepted as valid and unique writing. Since the book, based in the monograph, is being edited by the author and will be reliesed this year, I don't see any harm in deleting this for a while, althoug it may hinder some discussion about considering the law forces as vectors coming from a social covenant and based on a main principle of reciprocity. If passed the test of deletion, I will increment the article.[reply]
- Delete A theory supported only by one university thesis is not notable. There is the need for a least one other source than the university that anyone besides the examining committee and the author thinks it's notable. No institution can validly peer-review its own publications. peer review, just like our own standards, requires independent sources. DGG 01:11, 22 March 2007 (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.