Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Species Branding Hypothesis

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Species Branding Hypothesis

Attempt at promotion of extremely fringe, non-notable hypothesis. I do not believe this is salvageable. Orange Mike | Talk 22:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Attempt at promotion of extremely fringe," Give reasons as to what makes you think that this is Extremly fringe...? "non-notable hypothesis." The references and expert opinions are already there... Why is it not notable to you... Are you a SME...? "I do not believe this is salvageable." Why would you feel so dear...? FYI: Look for the content and try to be professional... Revenge and retaliation just reveal your weekness out in public... Just because wiki is run by charity, it doesnot mean that there is enough room for Cowards to rule... Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing can be done to salvage this article - the editor's attitude suggests that they aren't willing to listen to others. Deleting the MfD notice from the draft is not an act of good faith, and neither is deleting the notifications of failed AfC draft submission. WP:TNT is the best solution. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would have !voted Keep, except that the author is being his own worst enemy in deleting material that should not be deleted. I concur with User:Exemplo347 that it is necessary to blow it up and start over. The author has proposed an unorthodox hypothesis that warrants presentation in Wikipedia to the extent that independent scholars have discussed it, but this draft is written by the proponent and does not present the hypothesis neutrally. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Exemplo347. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 08:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a self-published theory with no indication it has ever been discussed by the broader scientific community. Even were the summary completely rewritten by a non-COI editor, it wouldn't be notable. Agricolae (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Orangemike, I just noticed that you left a message that my hypothesis was "non-notable hypothesis"... Are you an Expert in this field, if so are you Prepared to discuss the details...? Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Notable' has nothing to do with the details of the hypothesis - it has to do with the coverage the hypothesis has received in independent secondary sources. Expertise of editors has nothing to do with it. Agricolae (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the following two 'votes' were moved here by User:9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS from Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Species Branding Hypothesis The first, unsigned, was from the original nominator, User:Orangemike, and thus does not represent an independent vote, so I have struck the recommendation. Agricolae (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ for the reasons stated in the nomination. Author is citing his own self-published work. That last paragraph alone is evidence that this has no place here. --00:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete per OP. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not what Wikipedia is for. jps (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have been unable to find any evidence that this hypothesis is notable. Accordingly, there is no hope to create a policy compliant article at this time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is a draft, not an article. If it were an article I would be voting delete, as it does not provide evidence of notability, and there may well be none. But some may be found, or may be published in the future. And it's not a fringe hypothesis as claimed above, it's a perfectly sane hypothesis, consistent with established science (though that's not to say that it's correct). Maproom (talk) 08:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The creator of the draft continues to submit it for review, while ignoring the advice he has been given about notability. This has become vexatious. Maproom (talk) 10:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I agree with the above (this is not an article it is a draft) but I am having no luck funding any decent references. Thus (I suspect) that if it did make it to main space it would be AFD'd straight away, and fail.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Robert McClenon hit the nail on the head. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for various reasons. I both agree and disagree with User:Maproom. First, since this is a draft, not an article, it should be held to a lower standard, and not being supported by references is not cause to delete a draft. On the other hand, it is fringe science precisely in that, although it is consistent with established science, it hasn't been accepted by established science. I would be !voting Keep except that the author is both being self-promotional and is editing disruptively. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why are we even discussing this? One of our basic policies says Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. Yes, the bold is in the policy, right up front. This draft is a canonical example of original research both in the plain-English and Wikipedia senses of the term. That means there is no possibility of the draft entering article space in anything resembling its current form. Dr. Joseph needs to write up his work, get it accepted by a reputable scientific press, and have it taken up in a serious way by the scientific community (even if it's to refute the idea). Then we can entertain a draft that could form the basis of an article. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fascinating stuff; it has four pictures that I can't understand AND a summary, which is almost as many pictures as Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration, and it's much more grounded in reality than that article. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ಠ_ಠ <-- That's my look of disapproval for those who insist on injecting U.S. Presidential politics into every damn discussion on Wikipedia. Cox and Cocktails!!![1] --Guy Macon (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, it was just an example. Not everything is an allegory! (And aren't you injecting penile jokes into this MfD???) Drmies (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - enough of this! Extensive discussion on the article creator's talk page demonstrates that there are no independent sources discussing his hypothesis. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at the least per WP:NOTWEBHOST. It's unsuitable as a potential article (per above), so there's no encyclopedic reason for us to be hosting this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Commnet - it is pertinent to this MfD that a formal Creation request has been declined for reasons of non-independence, non-notability and the essay-like nature of its summary, and that no further improvement of the draft is likely forthcomming, because the creator has been blocked indefinitely for reasons of battleground behavior and harassment. Agricolae (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2017 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.