User talk:JamesDC

MartinPoulter (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Raison oblige theory
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Raison oblige theory. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Raison oblige theory. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 13:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Raison oblige theory
Given that consensus for deletion has not been achieved, my guess is that the discussion will be relisted in a few days. If a couple other people recommend deletion after that, the article is in jeopardy.

I think these are a few of the problems with the article:

 * 1) It might be too long and detailed given the limited coverage in WP:Reliable sources. When a WP article is very detailed like this and there aren't a whole lot of reliable sources out there, many suspect that the article may contain WP:original research. I raise this concern also because there are a lot of non-footnoted statements in the article. Sometimes an article like this is better off being simple and summarizing the work concisely.
 * 2) Publications by the developer of Raison oblige theory are not considered reliable independent sources. While it is acceptable to have them as sources, they do not, by themselves, demonstrate notability. Notability needs to be demonstrated by other people accepting, reviewing or debating (or even refuting) this theory. So you should try to find review articles, books, etc. where this theory is discussed. I see you have provided several references for this article, but most of them look to be pre-2006, before this theory was developed. So they cannot possibly be establishing the notability of the topic. Notability is the single most important thing to establish here (in order to avoid deletion). WP is not here to promote a rare theory, but if the theory is gaining momentum and is indeed notable, it should be included.
 * 3) As for the layout and formatting, I think this is OK. I added an external links section.

Regards, PDCook (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)