Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death and Adjustment Hypotheses (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Death and Adjustment Hypotheses
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Procedural nomination. After I closed the previous discussion as "delete," the creator of the article asked me to email him the source text of the deleted article. He has recreated the article; please reassess it. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  --  J mundo 04:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR, WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTABILITY. This is based entirely on two (both religious) source. Wikipedia is not the place to publish or to gain exposure from. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep after neutral modification  as it is not an Original Research, Neutral point of view depends largely on the editors approach and point of view that can be changed by adding new editor, and notability of the article is the subject itself. I do not see any religious resource, rather peer reviewed works are there on the issue. Plus similarity or dissimilarity to religion should not be any merit. If the hypotheses are not good, scientifically, the article can hold evidence for it too. Shoovrow (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I concur with Headbomb. HJMitchell    You rang?  14:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I can't tell rightly what this is, but it isn't encyclopedic. In part, it's a collection of quotes that themselves are grammatically challenged and are not organized in any kind of rhetorical framework. Is it original research? Is it book promotion? Is it some spiritual/religious text? I don't know. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails the WP:BULLSHIT test.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  08:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is basically a synopsis of Hossain's book, and there are no references that indicate the book or the "pair of multidimensional theory" it propounds are notable.  The appropriate guidelines are WP:BK (for Quest for a New Death) and WP:PROF (for Hossain himself), and the article fails both as it stands.  Incidentally, Quest for a New Death would be a more appropriate title for this article if it's kept. Tevildo (talk) 09:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It should not be deleted unless clearly understood as because the theory is now in scientific community via the very famous Tailor and Francis Journal on death - 'Death Studies'(find it at www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a907644823~db=all~jumptype=rss - ) and even McGraw-Hill educational material (find it at highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/dl/free/0078689686/374527/Additional_Lifespan_Development_Topics.pdf ) sites about the theory very specifically. Both of them are in the reference. Therefore, the theory is now with those who have not proposed it, but only reading it after peer reviewed publication. It is a more recent development but not unknown in the scientific world. I believe a rearrangement can help it become a useful encyclopedia article. I know, as the creator (bad creator, I believe) of the article I should not add much, but I believe recent but established (as scientific work) topic from the scientific world should not be left behind just for the failure of the creator of the article. Even time can help us proceedShoovrow (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The "Death Studies" reference is the sort of thing required to demonstrate the notability of the _book_, but not necessarily of the _theory_.  This article might have a better chance if it were specifically about the book - but that will require a complete rewrite and page move. Tevildo (talk) 15:22, 3 May 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.