Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In Search Of Perfect Symmetry

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 all. --Core desat 21:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Search Of Perfect Symmetry and others[edit]

These are several chapters from a lulu.com-published book, Science Matters, copied and pasted wholesale. Creator identifies himself as the author, Paul Bennet. Self-promotion, OR, and there are questions about whether they're copyvios. Regardless, they don't belong here. I don't think we want to be a free webhost for his book. Fan-1967 21:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a web host. Without proper confirmation from the author and GFDL release, it is a copyvio as well. And then there is the whole problem of the content being original research. -- Whpq 22:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq and Fan-1967. Copyvio, self-promotion, and OR. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 22:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We are not a web-host. Let the author pay for his publicity by normal means if he wants it.--Anthony.bradbury 22:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an aside, based on the number of submissions, I wonder if somewhere on lulu.com there's an "Advice to new authors" telling them to come here and create articles on themselves or their books. Fan-1967 23:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR and/or essays. Heimstern Läufer 23:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Brother Flounder (aka DiegoTehMexican) 01:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
wikify if possible
1. The author is confirming authorship. He needs to learn what to do, but not be thrown out. The proper attitude towards one who asserts copyright is not name-calling, but assistance.
2. As there's not a word of personal comment, it is not self promotion.
3. The articles are hopelessly unsuitable here, but he should be encouraged to contribute to the real articles on physics--I have not read for detail, but he seems competent.
4. I don't think a bit of it is OR, it is exposition, and its time we all learned the difference. It is obviously not going to be encyclopedic, and he should be redirected. Patiently.
5. This is a clear case of moving too fast. Not everyone here reads all the lists for deletion on a continual basis. Don't we have a rule that discussions have to be continued 4 days?DGG 07:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one has suggested an early close on the AFD. There will be four more days. That doesn't address the issue that these are OR essays and non-encyclopedic. We already have articles, very good and well-cited ones, on these subjects, that are based on widely recognized science, and not the personal conclusions of some unknown POD-published author. Fan-1967 14:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic --Henrygb 13:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. FirefoxMan 16:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but I agree with DGG. We should tell Paul that his contributions are appreciated, but have to comply to a certain rule set. His first experiences on wiki are probably not very motivating. --Van helsing 10:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As indicated in the nomination, these look like chapters from a book. The titles even look like chapter titles. These are not encyclopedia articles, nor can they be encyclopedia articles. Dr. Submillimeter 23:49, 15 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.