Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vital needs

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. I've recreated it as a redirect to basic needs. Sandstein 20:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vital needs[edit]

WP:OR and WP:BOLLOCKS. Leibniz 19:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research and unreferenced. —ShadowHalo 05:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Procrastinating@^talk2me 23:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? --Kinu ^t/_c 17:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd like to know as well. I've asked if the editor, if would pop back and fill us in. --Charlesknight 17:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

more refs - I'm inclined to think that this is OR considering that there is only ONE source. If this is truly is an important and notable model, than there would peer discussions and since it has been around for so long SOMEONE should have written something about it by now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zappernapper (talk • contribs) 08:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - I can find no reference anyway to this in any academic literature - flush it. --Charlesknight 10:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR by someone called Ulise Di Corpo added by USER:Dicorpo. Nuttah68 16:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, given the inability to find reliable sources (peer-reviewed journal, etc.) other than the one that is already in the article. Suspected WP:OR and WP:COI. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dr. Submillimeter 19:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete its going to need more sources before it can have an encyclopedia entry.-- danntm ^T _C 20:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

since as far as I can work out - he came up with it 25 years ago and it's never been picked up anywhere by anyone... well... --Charlesknight 20:41, 17 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.