Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hierarchical complexity


 * 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 of the debate was deletion. &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  06:11, Feb. 16, 2006

Hierarchical complexity
This smacks of original research. NoIdeaNick 03:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Well referenced, but it just needs to be wikified Ruby 03:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. The user who created this page, Commons@tiac.net, has no other contributions besides this and the seemingly related Stage and Hierarchical Complexity of Tasks, and most of the papers cited at both are by "Commons, M. L."  Not necessarily a reason to delete, but needs to be noted.  Withholding vote pending further research into the article itself.  --Kinu 03:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete original research. &mdash; ciphergoth 11:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep with cleanup tags. 472 hits on google book search, also google scholar shows a similar amount -- Astrokey44 |talk 12:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that argues in favour of a keep. What sort of thing should be in a Wikipedia article about hierarchical complexity?  I'm not sure there is a suitable such article. &mdash; ciphergoth 18:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete... well sourced but essentially an original essay.--Isotope23 17:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This article seems to contain a great deal of original reasearch but is essentially meaningless to the layperson thereby voilating one of the precepts of wikipedia. If the author can explain it in understandable terms, it would be much more valid--Dinosaurdarrell 19:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but clean up. Looks more or less legit, and may actually be something useful, though a bit obscure.  Probably merge Stage and Hierarchical Complexity of Tasks into it.  ikh (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks legit until you notice that the references are to unpublished articles by the author of that page. &mdash; ciphergoth 08:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It may be uninformed decision but the article has very unencyclopedic form and it is unlikely someone here will be able to clean it up. The Stage and Hierarchical Complexity is almost word by word clone of this article and should be treated equally.
 * Weak delete. Original research. —Ruud 00:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. The author citing his own unpublished papers does not constitute references. Stifle 02:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per stifle Maustrauser 13:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Extensive comment I'm not the original creator, but I do have a vested interested, and am largely trying to assist the author, who is not terribly wiki-literate. This is NOT a 'sock puppet.'
 * I've edited this Wiki in attempts to bring it up to your standards. I've wikified it to the best of my ability, adding links to many terms and words within the reading. Also, I've added more background.
 * Regarding the very common comment that this Wiki is original research, or unverified claims, I do not belive this is true under your standards. If you take a look under the references section, you'll see that this research is in fact published in a number of reputable journals, which is your guideline for distinguising between original research and a valid entry. The statements that this Wiki is referenced to "unpublished articles by the author of that page," and that the author is "citing his own unpublished papers" are not true, once again, please take a look at the references.
 * Of mention to the Stage and Hierarchical Complexity page, it is probably a better idea to just delete that one (which has seemingly already been done), and instead just link that term to Hierachical complexity.
 * And finally, in response to comments that this Wiki may be difficult to understand for the lay person, I will disagree, and simply say that as far as I can tell this Wiki is about as understandable as any other scientific or mathematical entry on Wikipedia.


 * 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.