Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of info-gap decision theory


 * 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   Speedy delete per WP:CSD.  Deletion requested by author. Matt (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of info-gap decision theory

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

POV pushing essay Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep 20 references. 141.161.92.138 (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: above IP blocked for disruptive editing. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete essay based on one (WP:FRINGE?) theory that argues a specific POV. JJL (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Clear OR--references supporting to some extent the hypothesis, as is the case with good research, but none the less a personal synthesis. DGG (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:FRINGE material. Also, maybe it's just the time of night, but it looks to me like only an expert would understand even the concept of the article. Quantumobserver (talk) 07:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Merge back into Info-gap decision theory where it came from. Quantumobserver (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, weakly. It may just be the title - this article might be intelligible to mathematicians, and relate to a valid subject, but if you can't tell that from trying to read it, it's rather hard to say.  Definitely needs translation into English. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Quantumobserver's correct about where this came from; see this diff:  which shows where the info needs to be added back in.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  20:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think I'd have to call this one WP:NOT.  The whole article is based off of one person's views (Sniedovich), and if you look at the list of references, Sniedovich's own works are the newest on the list.  This tells me that the author of the article was not able to cite anyone that's reviewed Sniedovich's work.  Matt (talk) 07:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete: G7 (Author requests deletion) – sorry about this; I created this article by forking it off from Info-gap decision theory (not understanding that NPOV includes "No POV forks"). The entire Info-gap decision theory article was (and remains) very long and inaccessible, as reflected by its history (Talk:Info-gap decision theory), but should be fixed on the main page, not by POV forking. (I’ve merged the content back to the main page – shall I delete the forked page?) Sorry for the hassle. —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not. Go ahead and slap a G7 tag on it if you've merged the content back so we can close this debate. Quantumobserver (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2009 (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.