Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concept-oriented model


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Concept-oriented model

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The "Concept-oriented model" subject appears to have originated from "Alexandr Savinov", who also seems to be the its only proponent (and the article's author), seeing as the article is sourced only by primary sources of which he is the author, which violates WP:PRIMARY and WP:N. Therefore, this looks like a clear-cut case to me. Silver hr (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I take a liberal view in what should be on Wikipedia. However, I agree with the above comment. Everything I could find on the article's subject, at least in English, was written by the article's author. Wikipedia articles must have significant information from sources independent of the article's author. Unless the author can produce independent sources, I cannot be convinced to vote to keep this article. Bill Pollard (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not for things you wrote up for an academic journal one day. Agree with everything said above; this is a clear violation of WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOR, and there are no third-party references (reliable or otherwise) apparent in the article or on Big Search Engine to indicate notability. De Guerre (talk) 02:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.